This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
What a well-designed human trial of a secretagogue would look like: randomised, placebo-controlled, adequate sample size, IGF-1 as primary outcome, muscle and strength as secondary outcomes, adequate follow-up duration. Very few secretagogue trials meet that description.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Reconstitution volumes in this family are often small enough that dead volume in the syringe is a meaningful fraction of the dose. A fixed-needle insulin syringe is worth the trouble here specifically.
The honest answer is that it depends, and here is what it depends on.
Thank you — that answers what I came here to find out.
Picking up post #31: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
Why this subcategory is stricter about sourcing than most: the evidence base is weaker and that is precisely why documentation quality matters more. A supplier page that clearly identifies the compound and the purity is more valuable for secretagogues than for incretin agonists where the evidence base is stronger.
Everything in post #35 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Tesamorelin is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.
This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching.
Having read the whole Tesamorelin thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
Post #38 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Injection-site reactions are reported more often in this family than for the incretins. Whether that is the compounds or the preparations they are typically supplied in is not established.
Small methodological point on Tesamorelin: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature is honestly weaker than in the incretin literature. Large randomised controlled trials are rare. Most evidence is mechanistic or from small studies. This is why this subcategory has higher sourcing standards than most.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
Building on post #44 rather than restating it.
Tesamorelin has an approved indication in HIV-associated lipodystrophy. That is the only compound in this class with a registration-quality evidence base from a proper trial programme. Generalising from that narrow population to healthy adults is a substantial extrapolation.
Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.
Trying to state the Tesamorelin position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
Why this subcategory is stricter about sourcing than most: the evidence base is weaker and that is precisely why documentation quality matters more. A supplier page that clearly identifies the compound and the purity is more valuable for secretagogues than for incretin agonists where the evidence base is stronger.
Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature is honestly weaker than in the incretin literature. Large randomised controlled trials are rare. Most evidence is mechanistic or from small studies. This is why this subcategory has higher sourcing standards than most.
The arithmetic in post #53 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Tesamorelin is the compound in this family with the strongest regulatory evidence base, and it was studied in a specific population for a specific indication. That evidence does not generalise to the way it is usually discussed.
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.
A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.
Helpful, and easy to find again, which is half of what a good reply is.
Reading a rodent study on a secretagogue without over-extrapolating: rodent studies can show a mechanism is plausible. They cannot show magnitude of effect in humans or safety profile in humans. That gap is larger for secretagogues than for incretin agonists because the human evidence is thinner.
That is the honest state of it as of this week.
That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around.