Will IGF-1 Still Work?

  1. Will IGF-1 Still Work?

    I ordered some premixed igf-1 from (Mod edit: no posting your source)to run.

    The IGF-1 came transported with a cold pack to the UK but when I opened the box the coldpack was not as cold as it had been when I ordered previously in winter. It had obviously been heated up by the weather in summer. It was about as cold as cold tap water which is to say not that cold at all.

    I am gonna try a bottle but if it doesn't work have people had success with getting a refund from (same edit) on unused bottles (I bought 5)
    Last edited by Jayhawkk; 07-04-2006 at 09:25 AM.

  2. Yes, your IGF should be fine. Lake posted a study a while back on the effectiveness of IGF after being stored at different temps for 1 year. There was no change in effectiveness after 1 year of the one IGF after being stored in 90 degree (F) temperatures. Your IGF should be fine.

  3. Quote Originally Posted by idunk42
    Yes, your IGF should be fine. Lake posted a study a while back on the effectiveness of IGF after being stored at different temps for 1 year. There was no change in effectiveness after 1 year of the one IGF after being stored in 90 degree (F) temperatures. Your IGF should be fine.
    Actually the study was for 2 years, which is a damn long time! And yes it will be fine, you don't need to worry about it.

  4. Eh, I was only off by 1......................year.

  5. Just to be clear was this test done on premixed igf-1 or the powder form? I know the powder form is like GH and is stable at room temp for about a month in the case of GH but once mixed in solution GH as an example is only useful for a day or so....

  6. was the igf-1 mixed in acetic acid or bacteriostatic water?

  7. It says nothing on the bottle abou what it is mixed with but from this company's website (they are maybe the best know igf-1 firm out there)

    "1mg/ml Long R3 Insulin-like Growth Factor-I (Long R3IGF-I) is an 83 amino acid analog of human IGF-I comprising the complete human IGF-I sequence with the substitution of an Arg for the Glu at position 3 (hence R3), and a 13 amino acid extension peptide at the N-terminus. Long R3IGF-I is significantly more potent than IGF-I in vitro and in vivo. Media Grade Long R3IGF-I provides an inexpensive yet high quality potent IGF-I analog."

    So saying **** all in either case what it is mixed with. Just a red top bottle with 1ml of liquid which could be anything...

  8. Quote Originally Posted by jomi822
    was the igf-1 mixed in acetic acid or bacteriostatic water?
    Bacteriostatic water doesn't hold the correct pH and I from what I know LR3 IGF-1 is not water soluble so that would be a bad choice anyways.

    As for what the others have asked, the test was done with it in reconstituted form from everything I have read.

    Supercellular: 95% of the companies out there are using AA, only a few are still being stubborn and using BA for some strange reason.

  9. Without giving away sources does anyone know what a company with the initials MR uses? It says nothing on their site or the bottle?

  10. acetic acid, always good.

  11. Thanks. I have been taking it for 3 days and compared to the last stuff I got from MR (in winter) I am pretty sure the effects were noticeable within an hr or two of taking it. Seems to be less obvious this time. I do think MR are ****ing up my not listing what they use either. That kind of info should be on their products page and on the bottles too.

  12. I look at an old vial. I'm almost sure what I have from MR states the dilutant.

  13. Read this at another board. It might explain why it isn't having the same effect as last time. I will probably avoid this supplier in future as the effects I am seeing are just not what I saw last time. I am taking 80mcg a day and getting less benefit than 40mcg last time. I think it must have degraded while shipping.

    "I feel like I ought to offer some more thoughts, with respect to IGF-1.

    I begin by saying that I've used the stuff on myself, under several different regimens. But, more importantly, I've now worked with quite a number of other athletes, using IGF-1. In these situations, I've had control over the dosage, administration, and diet. And I've prepared the IGF-1 injectable under standardized conditions, using appropriate buffers. I would receive regular reports and observations from the users. While I do not consider my data to have a sample size which would stand a test of statistical validity, my data base is larger and better quality than the individual anecdotal observations seen in board threads.

    There are a tremendous number of issues, not directly related to IGF response, and I'll discuss them, first.

    There are a number of boards which are seen as authorities for good information, yet are polluted by members and mods who are directly connected with IGF dealers. Furthermore, there are buyers who have been induced to act as shills. These people never identify their roles, and they have completely muddied the waters with their hype and outright lies. For example, I know of one guy who is an IGF powder middleman, and he has managed to get himself known as an IGF "expert", even though he has absolutely no science background. He goes around from board to board belching out some of the most absurd hype I've ever seen, all the while hustling people to buy their IGF from the company he sells his powder to.

    Then there are the ones who have some decent knowledge, but have gotten their knowledge all mixed up. In that thread cited, above, from the Cutting Edge Muscle board, one member posts about how good he thinks IGF is, then he offers a proposed ideal diet for maximizing the effect of IGF. Well, if you look at that diet, you will realize that you can do that diet, and put on 5-6 pounds easy, and not use any IGF-1! It's the diet that is making you grow, not the IGF!! Just ridiculous!!! Anyone should be able to see through that sort of nonsense, yet IGF is seen as such a "Holy Grail", that things like this are overlooked.

    Another class of post is by those who don't fully understand what is happening, when they use IGF-1. Yes, some legit research has shown that IGF can multiply muscle fiber. But it is clear to me that 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. IGF can send you into ketosis with ease. Good responders to IGF are hungry all the time, because the blood glucose is held low. All that glycogen is being driven into the muscles. The frequent reports of muscle fullness and vascularity is the result of muscles being pumped full of glycogen and water.

    There is too little mention of the non-responders to IGF-1. They definitely exist. But identifying the percentage of them in the population is difficult, due to the way most IGF is being sold. I'll discuss that, next.

    The business is rife with misinformation on how to properly prepare the IGF-1 for use. The ONLY proper way to rehydrate IGF-1 for use, where it will be at full strength and activity, is with an aqueous buffer solution, which has the proper pH and ionic(salt) content. However, it is not easy or safe for the average user to prepare such a buffer, and access to the raw materials is limited.

    A couple of years ago, Animal concocted the idea of dissolving the IGF he was selling, in some BA. He perhaps did not have access to the proper buffer materials, and he came up with this idea, in order to promote his business. Well, it sort of worked. But some, if not most, of the IGF is rendered useless by this method, since you need the correct pH and ionic environment for the peptide chains to unwind. In the end, you have to use a lot of IGF, just to get the effect which you would get, if you had properly rehydrated it with a buffer. In my work, using a proper buffer, the maximum dosage per day is 30 mcg. But I've seen good results on only 15 to 20 mcg's per day. It is typical for users with the Animal type product to have to use 50 to 120 mcg per day, to see any effect at all.

    Still another absurd notion is that you do not have to refridgerate the IGF in BA. I have seen some idiot "experts" recommend that "IGF-1 works better if you store it in your sock drawer".

    Now, I'm a chemist, and I've worked in biochem labs, and seeing all this online nonsense about preparing IGF really makes me crazy. But, let's use a little common sense. Both IGF-1 and hGH are chain sequenced peptides. So, they are in the same family. Now, we all know that you rehydrate GH with an aqueous solution and we must store it under refridgeration. Yet, these "experts" say we can reconstitute IGF-1 with BA and it does not require any refridgeration. I ask you, have any of you ever seen anyone recommend that we reconstitute GH with BA, and that we not store it under refridgeration? I certainly never have. It seems to me that this would be a real breakthrough, right? Not a single legit biochemist has ever advocated the BA method for preparing chain sequenced peptides. Again, I have never seen one of these online "experts" advocate using BA for preparing GH, yet GH and IGF-1 are in the same family. Now, doesn't that tell you something??

    So, you may begin with some active IGF in these BA preparations, but you end up with less and less, as it degrades.

    Then there is the shipping. Ever wonder why we don't buy hGH in reconstituted form? Aside from having to keep it cold, all the shaking and agitation, which goes on in shipping and transportation, would destroy the peptide chains. Yet these "experts" say there's no problem in selling and transporting IGF-1 in liquid form. Are we to believe that BA creates some wondrous, new, indestructable environment for peptide chains?

    So, now we go a step further. We begin with some active IGF in the BA preparation, but it degrades, and then we ship it, and then we lose still more and more.

    By the time you end up with it, in your hands, there is little or no active IGF-1. So, now, how do we determine who is a IGF non-responder, and who simply has gotten a ruined bottle of IGF-1? How do we determine the full range of response in the population, when the IGF-1 in the field is of random strength and unknown concentration?

    All these problems make a complete assessment of the true worth of IGF-1 very difficult. The buyer thinks he has 1000 mcg per ml of IGF-1, when, in reality, he has much less, maybe even none.

    It is my contention that much of the weight gain, seen by IGF-1 users, is water. Their muscles appear to be growing, but it is glycogen and water. Some will respond in extreme. I had one user put on almost 15 pounds. All water! Three days after his IGF cycle ended, the water was gone, and so was the weight gain. So, we are mostly seeing bloat, to a greater or lessor degree, rather than spectacular muscle growth. This accounts for all the stories of giant pumps, while training on IGF-1.

    I'm not convinced that there is really significant muscle growth. But I am convinced that there is bodyfat loss. As I mentioned, if your carbs are low enough, IGF-1 will get you into ketosis quickly, and then bodyfat loss will proceed accordingly.

    IGF-1 is not useless. IGF-1 is, at present, a very specialized tool. I think it's best use comes with bulking. Through its very powerful glucose disposal effect, a responder is always hungry, and the nutrition is pumped into the muscles. People who have difficulty eating while bulking, may find that they have fewer problems packing in that food. But, if you're an ectomorph, that will result in a much greater food demand, since you will need to eat more to compensate for the loss in blood glucose. You will most certainly have to eat in the middle of the night, due to hunger.

    IGF-1 is also useful while cutting, but it really makes you crave carbs, and, if you're not interested in going keto, then you end up having to eat more carbs than you would, otherwise. The glycogen pumping effect is anti catabolic, however.

    But that's about it, as far as I'm concerned.

    If you are to make the best use of IGF-1, then the preparation of the buffer will be a serious handicap. The starting materials are not easy to obtain, and the handling and storage of these chemicals is dangerous and difficult. If you prepare the buffer with the wrong pH, then you will completely destroy the IGF-1, the moment you add it to the buffer. You better know what you are doing, and have the correct equipment with which to do it.

    There are so many more cost effective and productive ways to spend your money on muscle building, than with IGF-1. If you're adventurous, done plenty of research, and have a wad of cash, then go ahead and give it a try. But IGF-1 is not the Holy Grail of bodybuilding.

    Have fun!

    This is a cool post. I'll respond by doing it Q & A style.

    The more you investigate IGF-1, the more questions you have. When I first was able to access this stuff, I was ecstatic, because it was a product which was shrouded in so much legend. I couldn't wait to begin experimenting with it. But, not long after, all the questions began to arise. The more I learned, the more questions I had. What had initially been excitement turned to chaos, because I wasn't getting the answers I was anticipating. Then, my source got busted, and the experimentation had to stop. That was really frustrating. Ultimately, I got access to the stuff, again and I restarted my examination. But still, there are questions....

    OK, so let's begin with Heathen's questions, in bold text:

    Do you know anybody that has done a longer cycle like 6 months to a year and what were the results like?

    It is clear that use of IGF-1 for more than 4 weeks, continuously, will result in the production of binding proteins by the user. These render the IGF-1 useless, the instant it enters the body. It is unknown to me whether the binding proteins will also go after the user's own IGF-1, or if they are specific to the R3 long version, which is what we are injecting. The health and wellbeing of those with whom I work is my top priority, so I never supply more than 4 weeks' worth of the IGF, in order to prevent any possibility of longterm harm from IGF usage.

    I am always on the lookout for IGF-1 threads, in every board I hang out on. From those that I have read, it appears that the effect of the IGF-1 fades beyond 4 weeks, which makes sense. The problem is that most of these observations are by users who are also using AAS, and/or hGH, and/or insulin, and/or etc. So, the waters are muddied by the miscellaneous chemical soup which these cycles occur with. The longest IGF-1 cycles I have seen on boards is 3 months on, continuous. I cannot see how anyone may ascertain the full value of IGF-1, when it is used in a complex combination. I am certain there are beneficial synergisms, but drawing useful conclusions of them, in uncontrolled situations, is difficult.

    All my current useful observations have been conducted by the use of IGF-1 without any pharmacology other than IGF-1.

    How long were the cycles that you observed?

    Four weeks, maximum. I require 4 weeks off time, then we can go on for another 4 weeks, if desired, and so on.

    Is there any danger that could occur with long-term use that you can determine?

    There is some discussion and lab data(very little), which indicate risk of cancer. This is undoubtedly the case with ANY growth factor or hormone, including AAS.

    I have a female client I used IGF-1 with, and I learned, after her cycle, that she has a fibroid. Well, if I had known she had a fibroid, before her IGF-1 cycle, I NEVER would have permitted her use of a growth factor. Fortunately, the fibroid did not enlarge, post cycle. As things happened, she mis-understood her IFG-1 dosage, and injected about half of what she should have. It was not until we were about 2 weeks into the cycle, that I discovered the error. So, she was underdosed, and that is prolly the reason that her fibroid did not respond. But the literature is clear, with use of hGH, that fibroids do grow with exogenous growth factors.

    Again, it is dangerous to use any Growth Factor, in the presence of a cancer or atypical tissue growth.

    The other risk, referred to, above, is the production of binding proteins. If these translate into binding proteins for endogenous IGF-1, there is potential for harm.

    ....using insulin along with the IGF-1 help inproves the halflife of the IGF and that the 2 should always be cycle together. Any thoughts on this?

    I think it's pointless to use insulininsulininsulininsulin with IGF-1. IGF-1 R3 long already has a long halflife. Longer than any insulininsulininsulininsulin. Insulin will not increase the halflife of IGF-1. Insulin and IGF-1 both have insulin-like behaviors. So, perhaps it is the insulin-like behavior you are trying to lengthen. Well, if you do that, all you will do is increase the likelihood of side effects from the insulin(hypoglycemia).

    The only time you might want to use IGF-1 together with insulininsulininsulininsulin is if the user is insulininsulininsulininsulin resistant, due to excess use of hGH, or some other situation. Otherwise, forget the insulininsulininsulininsulin.

    What is aqueous buffer soultion? Is this any different then acetic acid?

    The aqueous buffer solution can be a water-based acetic acid solution(very dilute) or an HCl solution(again, very dilute). GroPep is recommending the HCl buffer. I've experimented with certain other additives, based upon my biochem lab experience, which I believe renders the IGF-1 more effective. I won't discuss details of this aspect, because I do not have sufficient qualitative and statistically valid data to prove my belief, were I to be engaged in a scientific debate.

    I was also under the impression that Bacteriostatic water could be used to reconstitute your IGF-1 but it would not be the best choice because it would degrade over time and elemental conditions. Is this incorrect?

    We are looking for certain things, when reconstituting IGF-1. We want the peptide chains to unwind and dis-entangle. We do not want the peptide chains to break down. We do not want the peptide chains to attach themselves to the storage or injection equipment, or to improperly attach themselves, within the human body.

    Key to this is control of pH, and also it's ionic environment. GroPep recommends a particular pH, ions, and ionic concentration. So you see the GroPep literature specifying 10 mM HCl solution, with a final concentration of 1 mg of IGF-1 per ml of solution.

    Bacteriostatic water(or BA for that matter) is not the correct pH or ionic environment. Could you use Bacteriostatic water, just the same? You will not achieve the goals, stated above, in properly reconstituting IGF-1. Some chains will unwind and become active. But some chains will break down and others will stick to the walls of the storage and handing equipment. The most visible proof that this is so, can be seen by reading the posts of others, in other boards. These guys are using anywhere from 50 to 200 mcg of IGF-1 per day, to achieve some response. I have seen good response from as little as 15 mcg per day in athletes. I'm using the same raw IGF as the others, and injecting it the same way. The difference is in the preparation.

    But my understanding of the best way to reconstitute IGF-1 is to use the IGFBP-3 carrier protein soultion (which you can buy with the IGF-1 if you buy it from a legedimate source). Is this correct?

    Unnecessary. Much is misunderstood as to what the actual use of the raw powder is intended for. The most commonly used version of the raw powder is "media grade". What this is used for is an industrial technology called "cell" or "tissue" culture. Here, very specially bred cells are grown in a very sophisticated laboratory environment, in large quantities. The cells live in a nutrient bath, and they are provided with various specialized growth factors to make them grow in certain ways and at certain rates. It turns out that IGF-1 long R3 is a superb growth factor for certain types of tissue culture. That is what most of the IGF-1 long R3 powder is sold for.

    Tissue culture systems are not living systems. The cells grow in an artificial environment, and not a living environment. Artificial environments do not contain serum or carrier protein. In order for the IGF-1 to function properly, a carrier protein, or serum, is needed. However, the human body is a living system, and the blood supply is very much loaded with serum! So, you do not need to supply the IGF-1 with any carrier protein or serum.

    Does the IGFBP-3 need to be rehydrated with BA (bacteriostatic water) or shold you use acetic acid?

    I strongly recommend that you go with GroPep's protocol, as mentioned above:

    Use a 10 mM HCl solution, and make the final concentration to be 1 mg of IGF-1 per ml of solution.

    Now, understand, we are talking about the necessity for considerable precision, here. A bit high on the acid concentration, and the pH gets tilted the wrong way. If you add the IGF-1 powder to this solution, it will be destroyed on contact.

    In my own work, for injection, I first have the user draw 0.1 ml of Bacteriostatic water into the insulininsulininsulininsulin pin, then pull whatever dosage of IGF-1 is desired. The Bacteriostatic water has little opportunity to mix with the IGF-1. Upon injection, the Bacteriostatic water shoves in all the IGF-1, first, then flushes the rest of the pin out, as he/she injects the remaining contents of the pin. There is no loss of IGF-1 in this manner.

    based on your observations....would IGF-1 be a superior glycogen loader post workout when compaired to insulin?....you don't seem to see as many of the negative side effects of IGF-1 as compaired to insulin.

    I have yet to see or learn of anyone having gone into a dangerous hypoglycemia from any dosage of IGF-1. That degree of safety is unmatched by insulin. Due to it's long term effect upon blood glucose levels, and it's different mode of activity, nobody gets fat using IGF-1, regardless of diet. Again, that cannot be said for Insulin. I dislike insulin, for myself, and due to it's cumbersome behavior, as well as with others who used it, whom I have worked with. There is no doubt in my mind that insulin is prolly the most powerfully anabolic drug, but I think it's a pain in the ass for most, and can result in serious bodyfat accumulation in many users. I think the bodyfat part is often intentionally not talked about, when the joys of insulin are discussed. IGF-1 is not as powerful as Insulin, but it sure is easier to take and manage. In my previous post, I have discussed it's advantages, as I see them. I am certain that others will differ, particularly those with the miraculous tales of gaining 15 pounds of solid muscle, while losing 4 percent bodyfat, in a 4 week IGF-1 cycle. BWaHAHahaha!

    ....any additional thoughts would be very helpful....

    I have failed to mention a possible side effect for IGF-1. It makes many users feel very hot. I recall using it on myself, during a winter. I was going outdoors in a t-shirt and shorts in 30 degree weather. At night, I would set the heat in my bedroom to 60 degrees, and even at that, a light bedsheet was too much. It reminded me alot of using DNP, but I won't go into that saga!

    Another possible side effect occurs with the higher dosages. It is believed that the gut has many IGF-1 receptors. In the cases of higher dosages, I have had reported(and I experimented myself at 50 mcg per day, which was waaay too much for my version of IGF) very frequent visits to the toilet. Like, every hour! This is not good, but it illustrates the sensitivity which certain tissues have for IGF-1. The problem resolves itself, when the dosage is lowered.

    I think it best to use IGF-1 in a manner similar to insulin; a divided dose, with one injection just before meal one, then the second one, post workout. This will keep you very hungry, all the time.

    ....I was a little shocked that Bill didn't do a write up on IGF-1 in his updated Anabolics 2004....

    I don't blame him for that omission. There is soooo much confusion over this stuff. And, in this business, if you take a public stand on a topic, someone will come along with ammunition to blow your head off. In my case, I'm not some famous person, who makes money by selling my point of view. So, I can say what I believe, and others are welcome to believe what they like, and it won't affect me.

    I have had a real evolution of opinion over IGF-1. Early on, I believed that it was quite an anabolic drug. Now, I have re-aligned my view. I still believe that IGF-1 has valid and effective uses. But having settled upon a reliable method of preparation, and having used it in enough "controlled" situations, the picture is much clearer to me now.

    I think the famous public experts in this business really need to re-visit this IGF-1 topic, apply some science, and get beyond the hype. And, by all means, stay away from making observations on genetically superior athletes(and those who love to blow everything out of proportion), and trying to apply that to everyone. My best knowledge comes from working with the average fellas you see in the gym.

    The only specialist I know of, who has a rational point of view on IGF-1, is Dave Palumbo. If you are looking for additional points of view, turn to him.

    I wanna say something else, in connection with IGF-1. I am known here as a promoter of short cycles. I have long searched for the short cycle which was the most natural and easy going on the body. AAS are OK, but they are harsh on the body in many ways. I wanted to get involved with examining IGF-1, in a big way, because I had hoped it really was a kind of short cycle Holy Grail. A minute dosage, a simple subcutaneous injection, no stress on internal organs, few obvious side effects, and moderate muscle growth. It seemed like something you could cycle for years, and just grow and grow. It all looked really great, and I wanted to believe in it, very much.

    Well, it's not quite the Holy Grail. I think what I still need to do is learn how to take better advantage of the insulin-like characteristic. For any of you who have had insulin experience, IGF-1 is like that, only better. Of all the guys I worked with, who had previously used insulininsulininsulininsulin, they liked IGF-1 better.

    So, I think we still have a ways to go with IGF-1. That's why I have not written it off. I only offer a caution. With time, we are surely gonna learn how to maximize it's benefits, which are definitely real. I still have so many questions I want to answer.

    Thanks for these good questions, and helping us clear the air. Very Happy

    Everything depends upon the way it is prepared, stored, shipped, and so on...

    Some guys end up having to shoot 100 mcg per day, with the worst sort of preparations. Others have great results on only 15 mcg, due to proper preparations.

    I find that it usually takes a couple of days for the effects(hunger mostly, as well as good pumps) to fully appear. They do not slam you, they sort of ramp up.

    I do recommend a divided dosage, roughly every 12 hours.

    Again, it all has to do with how you prepare it.

    If you were to prepare the proper sterile buffer, which nearly nobody does, since nearly nobody has the facilities or expertise.... but, let's say you do. Then you can have an excellent response at as little as 15 mcg per day. I know this, because I did, in fact, prepare a proper buffer for the GenSci product, for several people who used it. They used it correctly, and they had excellent response.

    Say you prepare it with either bacteriostatic water for injection, or sterile water for injection. Then, the results are poorer, per mcg, because the pH is wrong and the protein strands do not properly unwind, and a percentage of them will break. Furthermore, because of the lack of a proper buffer, a percentage of viable protein strands will cling to the glass of the vial, and never be injected. This is a progressive process. So, with each passing hour, the concentration of viable protein strands in the vial declines. I will at least assume that the product is properly refridgerated and never shaken or shocked, in this example. In this case you better plan on at least 50 mcg per day.

    So, let's go still further. Let's say you go the real popular route, and dissolve the raw IGF-1 in pure BA. This is prolly the worst method. The solution is not only the wrong pH, but it isn't even aqueous, so the protein strands are still less likely to successfully unwind and become viable. Again, there is nothing to prevent the protein strands from bonding to the glass of the vial. This group also advocates no refridgeration, and they even ship the stuff around the country in this manner. Due to shock and lack of refridgeration, the survival rate for viable protein strands is not good. A very close friend of mine got suckered into buying a vial of this stuff by a scumbag(well known on the internet as an expert, by the way) who claimed it to be the best IGF-1 available. It was worthless. Nothing at all happened, when he used it. However, this same guy got great results, while using IGF-1 prepared as I had directed.

    I have to chuckle; it was Animal who developed this BA method of preparing IGF-1, and he believed it to be so revolutionary and superior that he claimed that he has applied for a patent on it. Indeed, it is so revolutionary that there is no research lab in the world which would ever prepare a long chain peptide in this manner, and for good reason!

    Anyhow, if you were to use this BA type of IGF-1, then you better count on dosages of somewhere between 75 and 100 mcg per day.

    In summary, the "dosage" of IGF-1 is only theoretical, unless you actually prepare it as any long chain peptide should be, which is in a proper sterile buffer and store it properly. Any other method of preparation, and the stock concentration will be totally guesswork.

    By the way, I beg anyone to find me any lab assays, anywhere, which gives the IGF-1 stock concentrations found in the non-buffer preparations which I described, above.

    I wish to remind you of one very vital matter: there is definitely a percentage of users who will never respond to any dosage of IGF-1."

  14. Longest Post , EVER!

    j/k great read, thanks for sharing your expecience.


Similar Forum Threads

  1. Arimidex powder will still work?
    By LMuscle in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-02-2012, 12:14 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-19-2012, 11:11 PM
  3. If IGF doesnt work, will GH work?
    By FullyBuilt in forum IGF-1/GH
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-14-2004, 07:47 PM
  4. still working on it.
    By regino007 in forum Pics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-17-2004, 05:07 PM
Log in
Log in