[ludacris007]

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.

[BLACK747]

i agree luda 100 percent something not adding up either way its seems to be working

[djbombsquad]

200 bucks is not bad again that is buying just once. Think buying in bulk. It may drop it by few dollars.

[djbombsquad]

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.

[Bobaslaw]

Originally Posted by djbombsquad

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.

DJ, I think you suffer from peptide ADD syndrome.

[djbombsquad]

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.

[pumbertot]

Originally Posted by Bobaslaw

DJ, I think you suffer from peptide ADD syndrome.

i was thinking more of 'pipe dreams' syndrome.

[pumbertot]

Originally Posted by ludacris007

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.

its not a myth, the research literature proves that igf causes hyperplasia and there is anecdotal evidence that lr3 can to a lesser degree mimic the body's own igf.

[kbtoy31]

Originally Posted by pumbertot

its not a myth, the research literature proves that igf causes hyperplasia and there is anecdotal evidence that lr3 can to a lesser degree mimic the body's own igf.

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.


~RR

[kbtoy31]

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.

[pumbertot]

Originally Posted by kbtoy31

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.

for me hyperplasia can be see if one has to take extended layoffs from training. you retain way more muscle than previous times when you have used igf for a few months in between. ive experienced this personally, Grunt has too and many others. its a debate but as that refernece says to me theres no debate.

Im happy I get hyperplasia and if you dont want any of that then dont take it.

edit: I should close by saying I ahve no reason to try to publicly defend my beliefs. im happy if nobody else was to use igflr3, all the more for me to use.lol.

[Grunt76]

Originally Posted by papapumpsd

With all of Dat's data and convo on GH releasers, why would you run GHRP-6 w/o CJC-1295? And why would you run IGF-1 along with GH releasers? I may be mistaken, but Dat's thread has info saying there could be negative feedback at hand if administering exog. IGF-1.

Remember, GH results in IGF-1 release.

It would be more appropriate to state that in sedentary people, GH results in IGF-1 release whereas in athletes GH results mostly in MGF release (which is admittedly another form of IGF-1 but still bears clarifying due to our needs and uses).

The GH releasers would most certainly be exactly BECAUSE there is a negative feedback loop. If I remember correctly, that negative feedback loop is mediated through somatostatin, and the releasers work through diminishing somatostatin effects. Which is perfect.

Originally Posted by xtraflossy

Well you have to do the math on this one..

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.

Actually LR3 has a SHORTER half-life in the body than normal human hepatic IGF-1. And that's a GOOD thing.

Actually LR3 is considered to be roughly 10x as potent as hIGF-1 and so is the DES[1-3] form, making them possibly equal. Then again, for our needs, only lab work (i.e. human trials, LMAO) will tell us which one is better.

[djbombsquad]

I have seen research however that suggests the half life of DES1,3 is so short yet powerful that there were some very interesting research articles a person found that showed research with LR 3, and DES. The DES is very powerful from what I have read, but yes the half life is extremely quick. I am not a researcher though. I would think looking at government websites such as National Institutes of Health, or NIST, or anything from some student researchers that post in there University blogs would allow us to better see how DES can or can not benefit us.

[Grunt76]

Originally Posted by djbombsquad

I have seen research however that suggests the half life of DES1,3 is so short yet powerful that there were some very interesting research articles a person found that showed research with LR 3, and DES. The DES is very powerful from what I have read, but yes the half life is extremely quick. I am not a researcher though. I would think looking at government websites such as National Institutes of Health, or NIST, or anything from some student researchers that post in there University blogs would allow us to better see how DES can or can not benefit us.

I'm ready for the lab work part of it...

[djbombsquad]

I know. I want to see lab work too. If I can get it for a reasonable price I may do half des and the other half of the cycle lr3.

[xtraflossy]

Originally Posted by kbtoy31

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.

lol- Its the same information going around over and over...

IGF1=hyperplasia. Thats how your body does it.
LR3= bound IGF1. IS usefull in bb'ing, as it activates the slin receptors. So if your arguing that slin is ineffective then..

HOWEVER; LR3 CAN be broken dow by the body's normal processes just like IGH1. You theoreticly CAN produce more des-igf this way then you normally might.
LR3 is modified at the beginning of the peptide chain I beleive, so if broken/cleaved in the middle, then the second half would be identical to a portion of the original IGF chain (in regards to des-igf)

Its pricy; again. it has a short half life, again. You would need to use it in a manner simular to regular igf (not LR3)

for a few hundread dollars, you are better off going with LR3. If you want the novilty of being one of the privilaged who uses des-igf, then by all means, do so. I totally understand. Ive spent the money right when mgf came out (and was one of the first to use/log it here)
My spelling DOES suck, and sucks more at 6am

[Grunt76]

Originally Posted by kbtoy31

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.

What is it with you guys and long half-lives?

First step is UNDERSTANDING HOW IT WORKS.

Second step is NOT WONDERING ABOUT half-life because it's NOT A POINT.

IGF-1 binds to a receptor and activates intracellular pathways. WHY ON EARTH would you want it floating in your blood for a long time? It starts doing its job when it activates a receptor. The form of IGF-1 that has the longest half-life is the hIGF-1 which gets bound by IGFBP's. It floats around for hours. Instead, we inject stuff that binds to receptors right away and gets to work instead of floating around uselessly.

I can't believe this. Why am I always re-typing the same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over a