GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics: different mechanisms, conflated discussion posts 31–54

Worth separating two things that post #29 runs together.

On analysis: these are short peptides and generally straightforward chromatographically, which means a poor purity result is more likely to reflect the synthesis than the method.

This follows post #29 rather than contradicting it.

Marking my uncertainty on GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.

A methods point on GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.

Research-use-only secretagogues are not approved for human use. That statement is doing real work in this subcategory, where the published evidence base is thinner than the volume of confident discussion.

Post #33 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

The version of GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.

Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.

Sermorelin and the growth hormone releasing hormone analogues depend on a functioning pituitary response, which is the mechanistic reason they behave differently in different people rather than a dosing problem.

Narrowing post #37, because the general version has more than one answer.

Ipamorelin selectivity claims originate in preclinical characterisation and are reasonably well supported for what they claim: less effect on cortisol and prolactin than earlier GHRPs. Whether that translates to something clinically meaningful is a different question from whether the selectivity is real.

Nobody has said the unglamorous part of GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.

CJC-1295 exists in two forms in circulation — with and without the drug affinity complex — and they have very different half-lives. Product descriptions frequently do not say which, and the difference is not cosmetic.

The arithmetic in post #38 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

On GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.

If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.

Two claims get bundled together under GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.

Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.

I will take the caveat as seriously as the claim, which is the point of putting it there.

Sermorelin and the growth hormone releasing hormone analogues depend on a functioning pituitary response, which is the mechanistic reason they behave differently in different people rather than a dosing problem.