Log would be awesome.
I will keep everyone posted on my progress
Last edited by BLACK747; 10-09-2008 at 03:23 AM. Reason: mispelled word
I have seen posts on this here before, at least a year or two ago. Same story then as now I'd assume as to why it's not really being run..
It's just to damn expensive. And not your couple hundred dollar expensive either. Like $5000 or something for a few weeks at a moderate does. And it just isnt worth the price most likely.
There was someone in this thread using it, and while It's an interesting compound, he has been on it for a few weeks and hasn't been like "Holy **** batman"! I'm huuuuuuuuuuge
if it has such a short half life then what the hell is it good for? maybe this peptide is all hype!
Click to enlarge
To investigate the role of IGFBPs on survival signaling and IGFBP-independent effects of IGF-1, we examined the survival response induced by LR3 and Des 1,3. LR3 and Des 1,3 rescued pVSMCs in low serum, suggesting that high IGFBP production by pVSMCs is a major factor contributing to the lack of a survival response to IGF-1. However, although IGF-1 and LR3 produced very different levels of protection in pVSMCs, the kinetics and extent of Akt kinase activity in response to LR3 and IGF-1 were similar. This suggests that, although both LR3 and IGF-1 survival responses required PI 3-kinase, LR3 may elicit a survival response downstream of Akt or independent of Akt. Although a number of pathways are involved in growth factor–mediated survival,50 we show that the survival effect of LR3 does not require ERK signaling. However, we have not excluded the possibility that Akt differentially phosphorylates Bad, caspase-9, or FKHRL1 in pVSMCs, resulting in reduced antiapoptotic signaling. Throught he research that was found chempep and growpep have clearly stated the potency of IGF-1 DES is much stronger and efficient. However Lr3 also is showing it's power. DES is very new and a verypotent form of IGF-1. Only some research is out, but it is promising for future medicine.
right know its 200 a mg not to bad
We use LR3 becasue it has a longer half-life then IGF1.
We used MGF and the half life was too short so we used peg-mgf (as opposed to viral administration of course).
Why?? Because while at $200 a gram, how many shots would you have to use daily to elicit the desired effect? (lol- you do know that you make this compound naturally right? ,..its cleaved via lactic acid if I recall correctly)
Anyways, 30-100mcg shots a few times a day,.. you will go through it
Then when you look at possible gains vs. price (and ease of use) LR3 looks much better.
Now, should it become bound to something to preserve the halflife, then it will be a different story. But right now, it doesn't look like you can compare it to LR3, simply because the playing field isn't on even ground.
i guess i misunderstood what was being said about this compound. i thought the half life was extended due to the lack of binding to IGFBP. if that is the case then the fact that it is 1000 percent more anabolic is negated right? it doesnt make sense to me right now from what i have read. maybe i should reread this ****. also i read on another board that lr3 igf1 is just a glucose disposal agent only and that the hyperslasia thing is more of a myth than fact. anyone care to comment.
i agree luda 100 percent something not adding up either way its seems to be working
200 bucks is not bad again that is buying just once. Think buying in bulk. It may drop it by few dollars.
I am getting a price this week for a 30 day supply to see how much I can get it for. If its reasonable I will think about it for the future.
I have a friend that will do a cycle with me. I am currently logging cre 02 so I can't do any thing but once I am done I may do cre 02 and some peptides.
I'm not saying you're wrong however theres a debate going on about that very question on another forum I belong to. I'm not sure it was who first wrote it but they are saying once you alter the protein chain that makes it the Lr3 version it's not the exacvt same compound and it's no longer useful as a bb'ing supplement. What heres the post I found on my other forum not saying I believe it or not. I'm willing to give anything a try once. I may react differently.
After many years of making countless posts on LR3 IGF-1, I've finally tired of the topic.
This will be my last post ever on LR3 IGF-1.
1) Gropep,who invented LR3 IGF-1, altered the protein chain for prolonged lab experiments. Once the protein chain was altered, IGF-1 lost it's muscle building properties once converted to LR3 IGF-1
2)Yes, some legit research has shown that IGF can multiply muscle fiber, but there is ZERO research on LR3 IGF-1, nor will there ever be. It was meant for lab cultures only
3) Should you get IGF-1, it is rendered useless by using acetic acid, since you need the correct pH and ionic environment for the peptide chains to unwind. HCL is what's needed.
4)The bulk of the response to IGF comes from it's ability to act as a sensational glucose disposal agent. This is the part where IGF's name, "Insulinlike", comes to the fore.
5) I'm convinced any weight gain on LR3 IGF-1 is an uptick in glycogen/ water retention.
6) Myself, along with several friends ,conducted studies on ourselves running LR3 IGF-1 at 3 different doses. Since LR3 IGF-1 is touted as some miracle mass builder, we never used steroids in our experiments. At 100 mcg, 150 mcg, and 200 mcg no one experienced muscle gains after 4 weeks on. Yes, we had hydrostatic testing done before during and after each experiment.
I think you get my point ....no more LR3 IGF-1 debate for me. You want to piss your money away, go for it.
Also if they pegylated the (des) wouldn't that give it a longer half-life as well. I'd like to see that. B/c if it's just astronomically expensive and has a half life of a few minutes. That wouldn't have me buying it any time soon.