Menu
Peptide Database
Results
No peptides found
Featured

Use search to browse all 100+ peptides

Hexarelin

Examorelin, HEX

Quick Stats
Studies 233
Trials 61
Score 4
2000 pubmed

Comparisons among old and new provocative tests of GH secretion in 178 normal adults.

Aimaretti. G G; Baffoni. C C; DiVito. L L; Bellone. S S; Grottoli. S S; Maccario. M M; Arvat. E E; Camanni. F F; Ghigo. E E

Key Findings

  • Hexarelin alone produced a high peak GH response (~55 µg/L), similar to strong combos like GHRH+arginine.
  • Combining hexarelin with GHRH gave the strongest GH surge (~86 µg/L).
  • Traditional tests like insulin‑induced hypoglycemia, arginine, and glucagon are also strong but hexarelin offers a comparable, potentially safer alternative.

Practical Outcomes

  • For biohackers seeking GH spikes, hexarelin at 2 µg/kg IV (or equivalent sub‑Q dosing) can be an effective single agent, and adding a low dose of GHRH can maximize the effect. Use the study's third‑centile cut‑offs (ā‰ˆ21.6 µg/L for hexarelin alone) to gauge a normal response and adjust dosing accordingly.

Summary

The study shows that hexarelin (a synthetic peptide) is a powerful trigger for growth hormone release, giving a strong GH spike comparable to other classic tests and close to the best combos, especially when paired with GHRH. This means hexarelin can be used as an effective, more convenient way to boost GH without the risks of insulin‑induced hypoglycemia.

Abstract

Classical provocative stimuli of GH secretion such as insulin-induced hypoglycaemia, arginine, clonidine, glucagon and levodopa have been widely used in clinical practice for approximately 30 years. On the other hand, in the last 10 years new potent stimuli of GH secretion have been proposed, but an extensive comparison with the classical ones has rarely been performed, at least in adults. In order to compare the GH-releasing activity of old and new provocative stimuli of GH secretion, and to define the normative values of the GH response, in 178 normal adults (95 males, 83 females; age range: 20-50 years, all within +/-15% of their ideal body weight), we studied the GH response to: insulin-induced hypoglycaemia (ITT, 0.1IU/kg i.v.), arginine (ARG, 0.5g/kg i.v.), clonidine (CLO, 300 microg/kg p.o.), glucagon (GLU, 1mg i.m.), pyridostigmine (PD, 120mg p.o.), galanin (GAL, 80pmol/kg per min), GH-releasing hormone (GHRH, 1 microg/kg i.v.), GHRH+ARG, GHRH+PD, hexarelin, a GH-releasing protein (HEX, 2 microg/kg i.v.) and GHRH+HEX (0.25 microg/kg i.v.). The mean (+/-s.e.m.) peak GH response to ITT (21.8+/-2.8, range: 3.0-84.0 microg/l) was similar to those to ARG (18.0+/-1.6, range: 2.9-39.5 microg/l) or GLU (20. 5+/-2.2, range: 10.6-36.9 microg/l) which, in turn, were higher (P<0. 001) than those to CLO (8.2+/-1.6, range: 0.3-21.5 microg/l), PD (9. 6+/-1.1, range: 2.2-33.0 microg/l) and GAL (9.3+/-1.1, range: 3.9-18. 3 microg/l). The GH response to GHRH (19.1+/-1.5, range: 2.7-55.0 microg/l) was similar to those after ITT, ARG or GLU but clearly lower than those after GHRH+ARG (65.9+/-5.5, range: 13.8-171.0 microg/l) and GHRH+PD (50.2+/-4.6, range: 17.7-134.5 microg/l) which, in turn, were similar. The GH response to HEX (55.3+/-5.5, range: 13.9-163.5 microg/l) was similar to those after GHRH+ARG and GHRH+PD but lower (P<0.001) than that after GHRH+HEX (86.0+/-4.3, range: 49. 0-125.0 microg/l) which was the most potent stimulus of GH secretion. In this adult population the third centile limits of peak GH response to various stimuli were the following: ITT: 5.3; ARG: 2.9; CLO: 1.5; GLU: 7.6; PD: 2.2; GAL: 4.0; GHRH: 5.0; GHRH+ARG: 17.8; GHRH+PD: 17.9; HEX: 21.6; GHRH+HEX: 57.1. These results confirm that, among classical provocative tests of GH secretion, ITT followed by ARG and GLU are the most potent ones and possess clear limits of normality. GHRH+ARG or PD and HEX are strong stimuli of GH secretion which, however, is maximally stimulated by a combination of GHRH and a low dose of HEX. It is recommended that each test is used with appropriate cut-off limits.

Study Information

Provider

pubmed

Year

2000

DOI

10.1530/eje.0.1420347