What do you guys think of this article on IGF?

I felt the article was excellent reading. He was referring to Long IGF-1 which makes it even more interesting.
 
Myth said:
I felt the article was excellent reading. He was referring to Long IGF-1 which makes it even more interesting.
Click to expand...
Look at the date too...its fairly old, but very good reading.My expirence so far is the IGF from our friends seems to be everthing it should be.
 
He was NOT referring to IGF1 R3 Long. He was only discussing the old IGF1 which is VERY unstable at best.

I would like the guys at Muscle Research to comment on this article!

My IGF1 R3 is diluted in the BA and I have been very hungry...very full and tight and my pumps have been excellent.
 
Gland777 said:
My IGF1 R3 is diluted in the BA and I have been very hungry...very full and tight and my pumps have been excellent.
Click to expand...

But didn't you know that it doens't work? :D
 
not so!!

He does NOT mention IGF1 R3....He is ONLY talking about the original IGF1. SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS IGF1 R3 in the article.

Besides...I have been taking it for one week now...and I am very impressed with the results. NO one can tell me that it is not working.









Grant said:
He IS refering to R3 Long, he said so himself in the original topic.
Click to expand...
 
Matthew D said:
okay not to be an ass but what is your point?
Click to expand...

I have no point, I am coming to you guys for help, not to make a point, I read the sticky and stuff on IGF, and am looking for yalls opinion on this.
 
2nd page of the topic, MT says...


"Be mindful that the IGF we are referring to is not natty IGF-1. It is a modified version. There is no proof in existance(so far as I know) that binding proteins for IGF-1 long R3 will affect endogenous IGF-1. But nobody wants to find out, I'm sure! hGH is exactly like endogenous GH, and there should be no binding protein production. "
 
He never said it was deinently not working, he said that alot of it will have degraded in the BA, and all of it will not be active in the BA. Have you read the whole topic? All of this stuff is right there and easy to see. I am just asking if it is true or not.
 
Grant said:
He never said it was deinently not working, he said that alot of it will have degraded in the BA, and all of it will not be active in the BA. Have you read the whole topic? All of this stuff is right there and easy to see. I am just asking if it is true or not.
Click to expand...
It does plant an interesting "reasonable doubt", I have used 4 bottles from MR and without a doubt can say it works, but the question is; How much is degraded, if any, from the BA? After all BA is a pretty harsh chemical. Also, how much more bio-active would the LR3IGF1 be by reconstituting with HCL, etc, and allowing all the peptides to "uncurl" and work their magical powers, it does mention a high dose was 15-20mcg when reconstituting with a correct PH HCL that supposedly allows for better bioavailability and thus better end results.

Hmmmmm...............You have just entered the Twilight Zone....... do do do do........do do do do
 
Its a simple an easy answer in which I have been telling people for months.

Nobody knows!

All these products degrade over time, just how much and for how long nobody knows. Insulin degrades significantly over 3 months. At what rate Long R3 will is unknown.

All I know is that it works and works very well. You won't see studies on this beause its not meant for human use according to Gropep and I doubt you will ever see anything that use Long R3 in BA so it will still remain unknown. For those that keep saying iot degrades and is useless, then according to their logic insulin and GH shouldn't work either. Of course it degrades, its a peptide but I know it works and the results have been pretty consistent. Saying its useless or won't work because it degrades is stretching the truth quite a bit.
 
BA will degrade IGF-1 on the phenylalanine reside in the presence of salts. Mannitol is a good preservative in BA/aqueous solution. Don't cut w/ saline.
 
Has anyone from MR ever posted as to their thoughts on reconstituing with BA? Do they use anything in addition to the BA as in perhaps mannitol in the one post? I am curious as to why all of the research companies recon in BA if there is a lot of opionion out there acetic acid may be better why do none of them use that?
 
Dr. D, or otherse, question on 'do not use saline to cut'. The BW sent by MR is BW with .9 normal saline. Some of use BW to backfill IGF-1 syringe. Any thoughts on the impact of saline on the syringe contents or is this regarding using saline to dilute IGF-1 in the vial?
 
aznurse said:
Dr. D, or otherse, question on 'do not use saline to cut'. The BW sent by MR is BW with .9 normal saline. Some of use BW to backfill IGF-1 syringe. Any thoughts on the impact of saline on the syringe contents or is this regarding using saline to dilute IGF-1 in the vial?
Click to expand...

Right, sorry for not being more specific. It's thermal degradation induced by the BA in the presence of NaCl, don't recon I mean. But backfilling is not an issue. That's why they don't send it in phosphate buffer. But mannitol is cheap, I don't know why it isn't prefered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top