anonuser
New member
- Awards
- 0
there are some interesting things, which i nearly never see addressed regarding igf1,
for example: once igf1 has bound to its receptor, the cellular response from those cells will take around 72 hours to complete, pinning in the same place during those 72 hours will serve nothing but to cause igf1 downregulation.
this is where people get confused, because the half life of igf is around 1.5 days, so one would otherwise assume to inject once every 1.5 days.
now for reference im using grunt76's post entitled "My take on IGF-1",
if you havent already, you need to immediately go and read that. there is some rare insight into igf in that thread.
im not particularly sure why, but he seems not to advocate pinning in different muscle groups on different days to try and avoid downreg. he seems to think that doing so still causes the downreg. possibly because of the systemic nature of igf1? its hard to tell. i would have thought a lower dose using micro injections could possibly bypass that but who knows.
instead of going into depth on this topic, ill say any and all good info ive come across has been from that thread, there's alot of great info through the q and a's, and you really need to check it out
Now the real agenda of this thread is to find out how mgf works relative to this. we know that mgf increases cell proliferation and igf increases differentiation, and that the presence of one will inhibit the other.
now do mgf receptor equally take 72 hours to finish their actions? and does administering igf during this time interrupt this action? because i would argue that if it didn't interrupt the cell action then why wait any longer than 20 mins after you've administered mgf to add igf?
my point here is people use the half life each as a gauge to determine when they can next apply the other. which seems odd. for example the mantra "use mgf on rest days, then wait a day/12-30 hours then apply igf."
everyone knows using igf when mgf is still in your system, will cancel cell proliferation and mitigate its effects. and it seems apparent to me that people think that its mgf's half life that is somehow the important factor in determining whether igf will turn off proliferation. but based on the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding ive seen on the topic, im inclined to think that this is just that.
it makes more sense that the presence of igf while a cell is undergoing its actions involving mgf would be what causes the change in transcription.
however, were this true then the difference between using regular mgf and peg mgf becomes both more and less apparent.
one could say regardless of the half life, the cell will remain in action for 72 hours as long as it found a receptor. so as long as your using a micro injection approach there shouldn't be much real difference?
i would argue that this would make regular mgf superior, as you could pin it at the end of your last shot of igfs Half life. as long as its pinned into a separate muscle.
what im saying is because the regular mgf will be local, there shouldn't be any systemic spillover to the muscle undergoing igf's actions. thus allowing you to make use of both igf and mgf during that window, instead of waiting for the igf's cell actions to complete!
now this whole thread is assuming youve read and understood grunt76's post, and is intended for long term use while avoiding downregulation.
you could still use a regular 4 week blast protocol, but you will experience downregulation, so be aware. also they never seem to make great use of mgf in these cycles. there are also, 4 weeks mgf followed by 4weeks igf protocols, and 1w mgf to 1w igf. but i feel using them both during the same cycle should probably yield equal if not better results, stave off downreg and possibly save you money from the frequency of injections.
again this is assuming the info ive posted about mgf's duration of action on the cell being around 72 hours is true. if anyone has any evidence to the contrary, please share.
thanks
for example: once igf1 has bound to its receptor, the cellular response from those cells will take around 72 hours to complete, pinning in the same place during those 72 hours will serve nothing but to cause igf1 downregulation.
this is where people get confused, because the half life of igf is around 1.5 days, so one would otherwise assume to inject once every 1.5 days.
now for reference im using grunt76's post entitled "My take on IGF-1",
if you havent already, you need to immediately go and read that. there is some rare insight into igf in that thread.
im not particularly sure why, but he seems not to advocate pinning in different muscle groups on different days to try and avoid downreg. he seems to think that doing so still causes the downreg. possibly because of the systemic nature of igf1? its hard to tell. i would have thought a lower dose using micro injections could possibly bypass that but who knows.
instead of going into depth on this topic, ill say any and all good info ive come across has been from that thread, there's alot of great info through the q and a's, and you really need to check it out
Now the real agenda of this thread is to find out how mgf works relative to this. we know that mgf increases cell proliferation and igf increases differentiation, and that the presence of one will inhibit the other.
now do mgf receptor equally take 72 hours to finish their actions? and does administering igf during this time interrupt this action? because i would argue that if it didn't interrupt the cell action then why wait any longer than 20 mins after you've administered mgf to add igf?
my point here is people use the half life each as a gauge to determine when they can next apply the other. which seems odd. for example the mantra "use mgf on rest days, then wait a day/12-30 hours then apply igf."
everyone knows using igf when mgf is still in your system, will cancel cell proliferation and mitigate its effects. and it seems apparent to me that people think that its mgf's half life that is somehow the important factor in determining whether igf will turn off proliferation. but based on the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding ive seen on the topic, im inclined to think that this is just that.
it makes more sense that the presence of igf while a cell is undergoing its actions involving mgf would be what causes the change in transcription.
however, were this true then the difference between using regular mgf and peg mgf becomes both more and less apparent.
one could say regardless of the half life, the cell will remain in action for 72 hours as long as it found a receptor. so as long as your using a micro injection approach there shouldn't be much real difference?
i would argue that this would make regular mgf superior, as you could pin it at the end of your last shot of igfs Half life. as long as its pinned into a separate muscle.
what im saying is because the regular mgf will be local, there shouldn't be any systemic spillover to the muscle undergoing igf's actions. thus allowing you to make use of both igf and mgf during that window, instead of waiting for the igf's cell actions to complete!
now this whole thread is assuming youve read and understood grunt76's post, and is intended for long term use while avoiding downregulation.
you could still use a regular 4 week blast protocol, but you will experience downregulation, so be aware. also they never seem to make great use of mgf in these cycles. there are also, 4 weeks mgf followed by 4weeks igf protocols, and 1w mgf to 1w igf. but i feel using them both during the same cycle should probably yield equal if not better results, stave off downreg and possibly save you money from the frequency of injections.
again this is assuming the info ive posted about mgf's duration of action on the cell being around 72 hours is true. if anyone has any evidence to the contrary, please share.
thanks
