My take on IGF-1

Page 11 of 42 First ... 910111213 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by stickdoktor
    Can anyone help with mixing information of IGF-1. I have mixed 1000mcg og igf-1 with 1ml of AA. 1IU draw=10mcg.
    In previous post it was mentioned that using AA without mixing some BA may cause cell damage. If that is true how much BA should be mixed with 4IU of IGF-1/AA mix?

    It's BW---Bacteriostatic water, not BA---Benzyl Alcohol.

    BW is water with 0.9% BA in it, to clarify...

    I'll let Grunt field this question, as he's the wussie that likes to dilute it.




  2. I was going to buy a 1mg kit with 10ml of sodium chloride as the mixing agent. Is this what everyone is using? Is there something else that's better? I've read something about AA, what does that stand for? I guess my last question is regarding injections. Is IGF supposed to be injected into the muscles you trained that day or just anywhere? I know some of these questions may have been answered and may be common knowledge to some, so let me just thank you in advance.
    Last edited by FLX78; 12-27-2006 at 05:46 PM. Reason: Additional questions
    •   
       


  3. I'll be spending most of this year researching but an opinion/point in the right direction would be appreciated - During a recomp/cut what form of IGF-1 would best go with PGF-2a for site specific growth : High dose rhIGF-1 or low dose LR3 IGF-1?

    Also, other than searching PubMed are there any books out there that discuss IGF-1, GH, Insulin, MGF, Prostaglandin (in humans, preferably)? I've got Anabolics 2006 and CME II : BTPB but would like to know more than just how to apply them to building muscle.

    Hugs and kisses x

  4. Quote Originally Posted by FLX78
    I have a question regarding IGF concerning what I was told and what I read earlier in this thread. Now I read that people continue to use IGF almost non stop for months at a time. Now I was told that IGF doesn't actually cause muscle cells to split, but instead only matures existing stem cells. This makes the IGF useless after about one month of use, because the body recognizes the excess IGF and stops producing HGH. Without HGH to produce more stem cells, the IGF becomes useless. Can anyone please clarify?? Thanks
    There is some truth to this. The results from IGF-1 probably stop because the myoblasts are depleted, having all fused. You need MGF to make more myoblasts. hGH has continuing results because it increases MGF much more than IGF.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Grunt76
    There is some truth to this. The results from IGF-1 probably stop because the myoblasts are depleted, having all fused. You need MGF to make more myoblasts. hGH has continuing results because it increases MGF much more than IGF.
    Thanks for the help! Can you tell me what's the best thing I should use to reconstitute a 1 mg kit of IGF or even MGF? What does AA stand for? Thanks
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by FLX78
    Thanks for the help! Can you tell me what's the best thing I should use to reconstitute a 1 mg kit of IGF or even MGF? What does AA stand for? Thanks
    Dude, that information has been posted about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times already.

    IGF-1 is reconstituted with Acetic Acid. The actual concentration needed is 100mM, or about 0.578%. We use 0.6% and I know at least one supplier who uses 0.5%, which is plenty close enough.

    MGF is reconstituted with Bacteriostatic Water.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Grunt76
    Dude, that information has been posted about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times already.

    IGF-1 is reconstituted with Acetic Acid. The actual concentration needed is 100mM, or about 0.578%. We use 0.6% and I know at least one supplier who uses 0.5%, which is plenty close enough.

    MGF is reconstituted with Bacteriostatic Water.
    Sorry but I just finished reading the thread. As for the percentages, I have no idea what you're talking about. I know I found AA on a site rated at 10% and at 25%. Are either of these acceptable?

  8. Quote Originally Posted by FLX78
    I have a question regarding IGF concerning what I was told and what I read earlier in this thread. Now I read that people continue to use IGF almost non stop for months at a time. Now I was told that IGF doesn't actually cause muscle cells to split, but instead only matures existing stem cells. This makes the IGF useless after about one month of use, because the body recognizes the excess IGF and stops producing HGH. Without HGH to produce more stem cells, the IGF becomes useless. Can anyone please clarify?? Thanks
    This happens only if the IGF is used at doses in excess of 40-50 mcg AND used ED. If you dose 2-3 times per week at about 40 mcg this won't happen. I've read that you can also keep this from happening by using doses of approximately 10-15 mcg ED.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by mywetnightmares
    This happens only if the IGF is used at doses in excess of 40-50 mcg AND used ED. If you dose 2-3 times per week at about 40 mcg this won't happen. I've read that you can also keep this from happening by using doses of approximately 10-15 mcg ED.
    Yep, I utterly agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by FLX78
    Sorry but I just finished reading the thread. As for the percentages, I have no idea what you're talking about. I know I found AA on a site rated at 10% and at 25%. Are either of these acceptable?
    Uh. Well. You state 10% and 25% and I state that the proper concentration for reconstitution is 0.6%. What is it that you don't understand?

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Grunt76
    Yep, I utterly agree.


    Uh. Well. You state 10% and 25% and I state that the proper concentration for reconstitution is 0.6%. What is it that you don't understand?
    Ok, so I read the thread and noticed that Oratropin-1 is recommended when people have injuries. I recently separated my shoulder about a month and a half ago. Will either form of IGF help? Will this be better than pinning IGF? I found a site that sells it and they claim it's better than pinning IGF all the way around. Has anyone had any first hand experience with this? Is one better than the other for different reasons? Should I take both? Thanks in advance

  11. Quote Originally Posted by FLX78
    Ok, so I read the thread and noticed that Oratropin-1 is recommended when people have injuries. I recently separated my shoulder about a month and a half ago. Will either form of IGF help? Will this be better than pinning IGF? I found a site that sells it and they claim it's better than pinning IGF all the way around. Has anyone had any first hand experience with this? Is one better than the other for different reasons? Should I take both? Thanks in advance
    Go with Oratropin.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by mywetnightmares
    Go with Oratropin.
    I absolutely agree.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by Grunt76
    I absolutely agree.
    Thanks for the help, but it would be real easy to pin where my separation is located. It's actually the joint where my collar bone is, so it's very close to the surface. In fact, I could pin the bone if I'm not careful. Also, are you guys recommending this off of first hand experiences? I'm asking, because I read on another forum that Oratropin is junk. From the delivery to the amount that Is actually used by your muscles.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by FLX78
    Thanks for the help, but it would be real easy to pin where my separation is located. It's actually the joint where my collar bone is, so it's very close to the surface. In fact, I could pin the bone if I'm not careful. Also, are you guys recommending this off of first hand experiences? I'm asking, because I read on another forum that Oratropin is junk. From the delivery to the amount that Is actually used by your muscles.
    No, it is great stuff. It is highly recommended in a case such as yours because most soft tissue has very little blood flow. Oratropin is cell-mediated, which means that it can travel from cell to cell through your body, enabling the IGF-1 to reach places where it would be difficult for it to reach with only blood flow as a means of dispersion.

  15. Grunt - Congrats on the Member Acknowledgement poll. You deserve it for educating us cretins on IGF-1.

    OK, I'll let you and Ubi get back to your endless argument over whether to dilute AA before pinning.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Grunt76
    There is some truth to this. The results from IGF-1 probably stop because the myoblasts are depleted, having all fused. You need MGF to make more myoblasts. hGH has continuing results because it increases MGF much more than IGF.

    will your body create new myoblasts over time without any help(MGF)?

  17. Quote Originally Posted by robster11
    will your body create new myoblasts over time without any help(MGF)?
    Yes, it will, albeit at a much reduced rate.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Grunt76
    There is some truth to this. The results from IGF-1 probably stop because the myoblasts are depleted, having all fused. You need MGF to make more myoblasts. hGH has continuing results because it increases MGF much more than IGF.
    So following this logic, if you were injecting IGF-1 everytime bilaterally into biceps versus rotating between 5 different muscle groups, you would expect the results from the IGF-1 to wear off 5x more quickly with the former versus the latter?

    In other words, if IGF-1 "tolerance" is dependent on all the myoblasts being fused, and you're injecting PWO so most of the effect is site-specific, then wouldn't you expect the "tolerance" to also be site-specific?

  19. Quote Originally Posted by FLX78
    Also, are you guys recommending this off of first hand experiences? I'm asking, because I read on another forum that Oratropin is junk. From the delivery to the amount that Is actually used by your muscles.
    There seems to be a lot of debate over this... Some people swear by Oratropin, while others think it's a bunch of nonsense (either because it didn't work for them or else they don't buy the science behind it). Because IGF-1 in general doesn't produce immediate and easily observed results, it will probably take quite a while to get a final verdict based on anecdotal evidence. (Although I trust Grunt so I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.)

    I will say this, though. My most recent cycle was 4 weeks of Superdrol. I gained 16 lbs, and then used Oratropin-1 (along with Nolva, an anti-cortisol, and ActivaTe) for P.C.T. It's now 7 weeks after I finished my cycle (3 after finishing P.C.T.) I have not lost a single pound, and my strength continued to increase all through P.C.T. Was this due to the Oratropin? Impossible to know for sure, but I suspect that it played a part.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by TeamSavage
    So following this logic, if you were injecting IGF-1 everytime bilaterally into biceps versus rotating between 5 different muscle groups, you would expect the results from the IGF-1 to wear off 5x more quickly with the former versus the latter?

    In other words, if IGF-1 "tolerance" is dependent on all the myoblasts being fused, and you're injecting PWO so most of the effect is site-specific, then wouldn't you expect the "tolerance" to also be site-specific?
    Yes and no. This is where it gets pretty complex. The higher the dose, the more spillover you have, IGF-1 working on a larger number of cells other than locally. Also the less myoblasts there are to fuse, the less receptors there are locally to pick up the IGF as myoblasts have IGF receptors.

    So as much as Long R3 IGF-1 is designed to be a systemic drug, it also has some variable degree of local effect, and WILL INEVITABLY ALSO HAVE SOME DEGREE OF SYSTEMIC EFFECT. And as such, depletion of myoblasts will also be both local and systemic, variable depending on both dosage and administration timing.

    So if you are injecting IGF-1 in biceps 5 times a week, your LOCAL effects will diminish maybe 3-4 times as quickly as if you inject that same dose on a 5-bodypart rotation. Of course, if the dose is reasonable enough, with the 5-part rotation, you will fuse as many myoblasts as your body can produce and you will get constant benefit from the IGF whereas with pinning only the biceps you will have rapidly diminishing local results. The dose at which a 5-part rotation gives a perpetually constant results level will also give continued results if pinned only in the biceps. Local benefits will diminish quickly and total benefits will be lesser, though.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by TeamSavage
    There seems to be a lot of debate over this... Some people swear by Oratropin, while others think it's a bunch of nonsense (either because it didn't work for them or else they don't buy the science behind it). Because IGF-1 in general doesn't produce immediate and easily observed results, it will probably take quite a while to get a final verdict based on anecdotal evidence. (Although I trust Grunt so I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.)

    I will say this, though. My most recent cycle was 4 weeks of Superdrol. I gained 16 lbs, and then used Oratropin-1 (along with Nolva, an anti-cortisol, and ActivaTe) for P.C.T. It's now 7 weeks after I finished my cycle (3 after finishing P.C.T.) I have not lost a single pound, and my strength continued to increase all through P.C.T. Was this due to the Oratropin? Impossible to know for sure, but I suspect that it played a part.
    Here we go again.

    Yep, it is always the case: the evidence is inconclusive. No one will ever ascertain exactly what the benefits of IGF-1 are because there are always so many variables involved within the time span of measuring IGF-1's effects. To properly assess its effects, you would have to have gear virgins doing only IGF-1 for a couple months, then going back to fully natural training for a year and match that with controls staying natural the whole way through. Say, 100 test subjects. Of course, this will not happen.

    So we are eternally stuck in the twilight of inconclusiveness, with lots of theory and anecdote stating its goodness and then no hard proof. The bashers inevitably use this lack of hard proof to try and discredit IGF-1 or even more easy, Oratropin-1. I know of one IFBB professional bodybuilder, Olympia level, who states that IGF-1 will kill bodybuilders because it will grow the heart HUGE. And in the same sentence states that athletes are not crediting any significant muscle growth to IGF-1, so it obviously isn't particularly useful. That is akin to stating that Long R3 IGF-1 is a heart-specific growth factor, which obviously it isn't. Which only goes to show that some people, even with good intentions, misuse the presence or absence of information to draw crazy conclusions.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Grunt76
    Here we go again.

    Yep, it is always the case: the evidence is inconclusive. No one will ever ascertain exactly what the benefits of IGF-1 are because there are always so many variables involved within the time span of measuring IGF-1's effects. To properly assess its effects, you would have to have gear virgins doing only IGF-1 for a couple months, then going back to fully natural training for a year and match that with controls staying natural the whole way through. Say, 100 test subjects. Of course, this will not happen.

    So we are eternally stuck in the twilight of inconclusiveness, with lots of theory and anecdote stating its goodness and then no hard proof. The bashers inevitably use this lack of hard proof to try and discredit IGF-1 or even more easy, Oratropin-1. I know of one IFBB professional bodybuilder, Olympia level, who states that IGF-1 will kill bodybuilders because it will grow the heart HUGE. And in the same sentence states that athletes are not crediting any significant muscle growth to IGF-1, so it obviously isn't particularly useful. That is akin to stating that Long R3 IGF-1 is a heart-specific growth factor, which obviously it isn't. Which only goes to show that some people, even with good intentions, misuse the presence or absence of information to draw crazy conclusions.
    Wasn't trying to start a debate about Oratropin-1, just wanted to give him my opinion of the situation. You're right, though, that we are stuck in the "twilight of inconclusiveness" (nice phrase) until either there's a clinical trial done (doubtful) or else IBE can release the specifics of the delivery mechanism. (At this point it has all been quite vague, which apparently is due to restrictions put on them by the pharmaceutical developer of the delivery system.) I personally am convinced of the effectiveness of injectable IGF-1 LR3, so if we had enough information to know for sure that Oratropin's delivery mechanism is effective, that would be enough for me.

    Like I said, though, using Ora-1 during P.C.T. I didn't lose a single pound and continued to see strength gains, which is rather impressive IMO.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by TeamSavage
    Wasn't trying to start a debate about Oratropin-1, just wanted to give him my opinion of the situation. You're right, though, that we are stuck in the "twilight of inconclusiveness" (nice phrase) until either there's a clinical trial done (doubtful) or else IBE can release the specifics of the delivery mechanism. (At this point it has all been quite vague, which apparently is due to restrictions put on them by the pharmaceutical developer of the delivery system.) I personally am convinced of the effectiveness of injectable IGF-1 LR3, so if we had enough information to know for sure that Oratropin's delivery mechanism is effective, that would be enough for me.

    Like I said, though, using Ora-1 during P.C.T. I didn't lose a single pound and continued to see strength gains, which is rather impressive IMO.
    Oh, I was not trying to state that you are bashing in any way, as most people who used Oratropin speak of benefits during the time they were taking it.

    As a matter of fact, I prefer oratropin to injectable for PCT. It's that good.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Grunt76
    Yes and no. This is where it gets pretty complex. The higher the dose, the more spillover you have, IGF-1 working on a larger number of cells other than locally. Also the less myoblasts there are to fuse, the less receptors there are locally to pick up the IGF as myoblasts have IGF receptors.

    So as much as Long R3 IGF-1 is designed to be a systemic drug, it also has some variable degree of local effect, and WILL INEVITABLY ALSO HAVE SOME DEGREE OF SYSTEMIC EFFECT. And as such, depletion of myoblasts will also be both local and systemic, variable depending on both dosage and administration timing.

    So if you are injecting IGF-1 in biceps 5 times a week, your LOCAL effects will diminish maybe 3-4 times as quickly as if you inject that same dose on a 5-bodypart rotation. Of course, if the dose is reasonable enough, with the 5-part rotation, you will fuse as many myoblasts as your body can produce and you will get constant benefit from the IGF whereas with pinning only the biceps you will have rapidly diminishing local results. The dose at which a 5-part rotation gives a perpetually constant results level will also give continued results if pinned only in the biceps. Local benefits will diminish quickly and total benefits will be lesser, though.
    After reading this post, I looked into MGF and had some different answers to my questions. I read online that MGF will only live about 10 days in BW. When I called a research supplier, they claimed it would last up to a month in BA. Which one of these is true? It would seam like one hell of a waste to buy 1mg of MGF at a time, when it's only good for 10 days. Is there something better than BA to reconstitute it with?

  25. All I know is I followed Grunt's theology in designing my cycle of 4 weeks at 40mcg 2x/week. Worked great and allows for 3 cycles per mg of IGF-1!

    Also, to all the people who debate over half-life and everything, heres my .02 on that--
    I felt the effects of IGF-1 fall off 4-5 days after my last injection. I could definately feel a difference when I got off but it took several days for to notice it so this tells me that there is no need to inject more often then E3D, at least in my case.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by MattHines
    All I know is I followed Grunt's theology in designing my cycle of 4 weeks at 40mcg 2x/week. Worked great and allows for 3 cycles per mg of IGF-1!

    Also, to all the people who debate over half-life and everything, heres my .02 on that--
    I felt the effects of IGF-1 fall off 4-5 days after my last injection. I could definately feel a difference when I got off but it took several days for to notice it so this tells me that there is no need to inject more often then E3D, at least in my case.
    Cool. I like 3x per week, too, which adds up to more than E3D but less than EOD. Since most of you guys are on week-based splits.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Grunt76
    Yes and no. This is where it gets pretty complex. The higher the dose, the more spillover you have, IGF-1 working on a larger number of cells other than locally. Also the less myoblasts there are to fuse, the less receptors there are locally to pick up the IGF as myoblasts have IGF receptors.

    So as much as Long R3 IGF-1 is designed to be a systemic drug, it also has some variable degree of local effect, and WILL INEVITABLY ALSO HAVE SOME DEGREE OF SYSTEMIC EFFECT. And as such, depletion of myoblasts will also be both local and systemic, variable depending on both dosage and administration timing.

    So if you are injecting IGF-1 in biceps 5 times a week, your LOCAL effects will diminish maybe 3-4 times as quickly as if you inject that same dose on a 5-bodypart rotation. Of course, if the dose is reasonable enough, with the 5-part rotation, you will fuse as many myoblasts as your body can produce and you will get constant benefit from the IGF whereas with pinning only the biceps you will have rapidly diminishing local results. The dose at which a 5-part rotation gives a perpetually constant results level will also give continued results if pinned only in the biceps. Local benefits will diminish quickly and total benefits will be lesser, though.
    Interesting... thanks for the detailed answer.

    So let's say you were following your protocol: injecting a moderate dose (40mcg bilaterally) E3D, as well as rotating between many different muscle groups. There's been some discussion that with this protocol IGF-1 could be used indefinitely. If diminishing results are due to all myoblasts being fused, however, then even with this protocol wouldn't the benefits still diminish and disappear eventually (probably after many months of use)?

  28. Quote Originally Posted by TeamSavage
    Interesting... thanks for the detailed answer.

    So let's say you were following your protocol: injecting a moderate dose (40mcg bilaterally) E3D, as well as rotating between many different muscle groups. There's been some discussion that with this protocol IGF-1 could be used indefinitely. If diminishing results are due to all myoblasts being fused, however, then even with this protocol wouldn't the benefits still diminish and disappear eventually (probably after many months of use)?
    No, because your body is able to proliferat myoblasts naturally. Your muscles release some MGF when trained hard. Of course, this leads me to assert that a year-long pMGF and IGF-1 cycle will yield some great and constant results.

  29. so it seems to me that the real big difference between im and oratropin is that with oratropin you will not get the localized effects but everything else should be the same.. right?

    i like the e3d.. what would you recommend for someone using hst .. i.e. working out eod to get the best bang for the buck. a 3 times a week protocol or still e3d? would it also be a waste to use it on days on which you are not at the gym... i would think you would get the fatloss benefits but would miss out on the best times for new muscle growth...

    oh and this is by far the best post i have ever read.. great job!!!

  30. Quote Originally Posted by jonesboy
    so it seems to me that the real big difference between im and oratropin is that with oratropin you will not get the localized effects but everything else should be the same.. right?

    i like the e3d.. what would you recommend for someone using hst .. i.e. working out eod to get the best bang for the buck. a 3 times a week protocol or still e3d? would it also be a waste to use it on days on which you are not at the gym... i would think you would get the fatloss benefits but would miss out on the best times for new muscle growth...

    oh and this is by far the best post i have ever read.. great job!!!
    I think 3 times a week is a GREAT way to run it. Most of my thread speaks of "EOD/E3D". One key is to get no two consecutive days pinning it. I like to use it only on workout days though, I feel you will get much less out of it when used on non-training days.

    One exception is of course on a carb-load. Whether in the final stages of contest prep, you aren't actually training, but the IGF-1 will make sure that everything you eat goes into your muscles, making spillover just about impossible, or of course on a good ole CKD where you will play pincushion during the carb-load phase and not do any during the week.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. my take on usplabs jacked
    By lou38 in forum Supplement Logs
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-07-2009, 12:21 PM
  2. My take on PGCL
    By Wonderman in forum IGF-1/GH
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-01-2008, 06:27 PM
  3. My take on MMA and the direction it's going
    By FreakNasty22 in forum MMA
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-30-2006, 10:13 PM
  4. Here's my take on LR3 and t-3
    By JohnnyB in forum IGF-1/GH
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-23-2004, 11:47 PM
  5. my take on m4ohn...
    By julius kelp in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-02-2004, 10:10 PM
Log in
Log in