igf-1/poison

Marc-Antony

Member
Awards
0
What is your feeling about allegations made by King Kamali on an other board about Igf-1 being poison?

Originally Posted by King Kamali

IGF-1 LR3 drops blood pressure and gives a normal person an irregular heart beat. It also makes your cranium grow and enlarges the heart... Bad **** and I will never touch it.

KK

Discuss ...
 

PumpingIron

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
That's interesting because of his own growth use...
 
justreading

justreading

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
A lot of the pro's feel this way. To my best recolection my friend talked to levrone about it when he was setting up dosages and levrone was against it.
 

Marc-Antony

Member
Awards
0
That's interesting because of his own growth use...
He claims that increased endogenous production of igf-1 from hgh use, is completly different than using exogenous long arginine 3 igf-1.


But, he couldn't back it up, with research or anything, mostly "I know of 4 ppl that ...., and other pro BB's won't touch the stuff ..." which so far we know he could be bul****t!ng us ... Also, it's way to easy to draw conclusions from a few pros saying this or that ... Maybe, the where using T3 while running LR3, and that's the real problem, or exogenous hgh added to exogenous LR3, produced such an intense production of igf-1 ... lot of variables to concider. Especially, when you hear about ppl running igf-1 on its own and experiencing no side effects what so ever.

Seriously, I am not that convinced by his statement. I appreciate him addressing the issue, but I am skeptical.
 

Marc-Antony

Member
Awards
0
A lot of the pro's feel this way. To my best recolection my friend talked to levrone about it when he was setting up dosages and levrone was against it.

Did Levrone really adress the issue, or was it also "I don't like it" ... if it's that obvious (that igf-1 is poison), there would have to be some sort of research to back it up.
 

Marc-Antony

Member
Awards
0
I almost forgot, If it's such a fudged up peptide (the LR3 version) to use ... how come Long™R3IGF-I is already being used in the manufacture of three biopharmaceuticals approved by FDA and EMEA.

Makes me wonder ...
 

Marc-Antony

Member
Awards
0
http://biopharmaceuticals.novozymes.com/files/documents/NZGP_LR3_SafetyReview.pdf

"No formal safety studies of LONG R³ IGF_1 have been undertaken in humans, however a review of the relevant scientific literature suggests the risk posed to human health should there be residual LONG R³IGF_1 in a biopharmanceutical product is so low that it is insignificant."

"The poptency difference between long R³ IGF-1 and IGF-1 is lower in vivo compared to cultured cells. This means that the effective dose of LONG R³ IGF-1 is similar to that of IGF-1 administered in clinical trials and as a therapeutic and that the potential for LONG R³ IGF-1 to present a risk to human health must be considered similar to that of IGF-1 itself"

etc etc ... it's really worth a read.

At least I have studies on my side to show how safe it is.
 
justreading

justreading

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Did Levrone really adress the issue, or was it also "I don't like it" ... if it's that obvious (that igf-1 is poison), there would have to be some sort of research to back it up.

Basically something along the lines of 'don't mess with that stuff it's no good for you' - He isn't the brightest guy at times (claimes he gets gyno from winny) but I am sure it's something one of his comeptition trainers told him and I am sure they do research. I honestly only know 3-4 things about what he thinks about juice and igf and thats all I have on this subject. I will try to get in touch with my buddy who is close with him and see what trainer gave levron this info.
 

jenab123

New member
Awards
0
He claims that increased endogenous production of igf-1 from hgh use, is completly different than using exogenous long arginine 3 igf-1.


But, he couldn't back it up, with research or anything, mostly "I know of 4 ppl that ...., and other pro BB's won't touch the stuff ..." which so far we know he could be bul****t!ng us ... Also, it's way to easy to draw conclusions from a few pros saying this or that ... Maybe, the where using T3 while running LR3, and that's the real problem, or exogenous hgh added to exogenous LR3, produced such an intense production of igf-1 ... lot of variables to concider. Especially, when you hear about ppl running igf-1 on its own and experiencing no side effects what so ever.

Seriously, I am not that convinced by his statement. I appreciate him addressing the issue, but I am skeptical.
I found the thread, thanks for bringing it up.

In the same thread he also says that MuscleTech products work well for him. So take his IGF comments with a grain of salt. He may know something we don't. But if you come out and say stuff a lot of people are using is bad, you better back it up.

I've always thought him to be a clown anyway. If some other more credible pros came out against LR3IGF1, with some better info, I'd be more inclined to listen.
 

Marc-Antony

Member
Awards
0
Basically something along the lines of 'don't mess with that stuff it's no good for you' - He isn't the brightest guy at times (claimes he gets gyno from winny) but I am sure it's something one of his comeptition trainers told him and I am sure they do research. I honestly only know 3-4 things about what he thinks about juice and igf and thats all I have on this subject. I will try to get in touch with my buddy who is close with him and see what trainer gave levron this info.
I am blaming T3 on the heart problems ... and as far as cranium growth I can't see how hgh wouldn't have similar side effects.

The problem with pro's is that they run so many things at the same time, it's almost impossible to know which compound is the culprit.
 

Marc-Antony

Member
Awards
0
But if you come out and say something a lot of people are using is bad, you better back it up.
Yeap that's the real problem ... You can't just go bash on igf-1 ... and bring nothing to the table but the fact that you are "the king" ...
 

jenab123

New member
Awards
0
Yeap that's the real problem ... You can't just go bash on igf-1 ... and bring nothing to the table but the fact that you are "the king" ...
He also said something about he thinks a lot of pros will be dying in the future because of IGF. At least I think it was him, it was a long thread.

Anyway, what I thought was, hello KK, a lot of pros are already dying right now you dumba$$. As if going on major truck loads of gear and HGH year round and slin and diuretics and synthol and liposuction and implants etc etc. is perfectly healthy but no......a normal guy's head and heart will explode and he'll drop dead taking 40 mcg EOD PWO of IGF.
 

Marc-Antony

Member
Awards
0
He also said something about he thinks a lot of pros will be dying in the future because of IGF. At least I think it was him, it was a long thread.

Anyway, what I thought was, hello KK, a lot of pros are already dying right now you dumba$$. As if going on major truck loads of gear and HGH year round and slin and diuretics and synthol and liposuction and implants etc etc. is perfectly healthy but no......a normal guy's head and heart will explode and he'll drop dead taking 40 mcg EOD PWO of IGF.
lawl to that ... :icon_lol:

Yeah that was him saying that pros will die from igf-1 in the next few years.

I didn't dare to be too aggressive (as I decided to respond to his views) ... but seriously this smells like major bull. Guy is probably pissed cause he has been injecting synthol for all these years, when he should have been pinning igf-1 from the start ... :lol:
 

Marc-Antony

Member
Awards
0
After allegations made by King about igf-1 being poison ... I had a few things to say ... so here's our exchange.

Me:
One thing I'd like to add to the Long Arginine 3 igf-1 issue ... I totally understand, and respect KK's view on the matter.

If I get what you are saying King, LR3 is the poison, igf-1 is ok, as you seem to say that elevated production of endogenous igf-1 from exogenous hgh is ok. 'cause if igf-1 is poison too, then hgh has got to go down.

So LR3 is the culprit ... I only have two "problems" if I may say with this.

1/ Long™R3IGF-I is already being used in the manufacture of three biopharmaceuticals approved by FDA and EMEA.

2/ Novozymes did a safety review addressing teh use of LONG R³ IGF-1 in biopharmaceutical manufacture ... here is for example one statement made to address this issue "The poptency difference between long R³ IGF-1 and IGF-1 is lower in vivo compared to cultured cells. This means that the effective dose of LONG R³ IGF-1 is similar to that of IGF-1 administered in clinical trials and as a therapeutic and that the potential for LONG R³ IGF-1 to present a risk to human health must be considered similar to that of IGF-1 itself" ... IGF=LR³=HGH in other words.

Is it possible to assume that those systemics you are talking about can be attributed to other compounds such as T³, ... when asociated with exogenous use of LR³.

I'd really appreciate it, if you could address the issue some more.

Best Regards,

Marc-Antony
His trainer:
Peronally I think that IGF in any form is worthless. I have never seen anyone get any type of gains using it. A lot of people including some of my friends have made some wild claims, but how do they really know what the heck is working. If you ask anyone if IGF works alone first thing they will say is no you have to use it with a steroid. Obviously how would they know that it works when they are using a bunch of different drugs with it? Out of all the wild claims I have never seen anything as far as pics from anyone nor have I witnessed any of these results in person.

People also claim that it works to grow the muscle that it is injected to. How the heck can a few mcg's work to build a muscle group and on top of that how does it differentiate between building just the bicep and say the brachialis or why wouldn't it just stop at building part of the bicep and not the whole thing? The reason is that it doesn't work in the first place.

Next thing I'll here is how it helps keeps one's gains when they are off. I've seen guys come off cold turkey and stay pretty damn big for months without anything or just a little hcg and clomid. Bottom line is it's worthless imo and at waste of money.
Me
I only have a problem with your statments ...

"There are primarily two theories as to how GH exerts its growth promoting effects. The first theory is called the Dual Effector theory (Green, 1985). The second theory is called the Somatomedin ("mediator of growth") Hypothesis (Daughaday, 1972). Both theories are fairly strait forward. Let's start with the Dual Effector theory.

The Dual Effector theory states that GH itself has anabolic effects directly on body tissues. This theory has been supported by studies looking at the effects of injecting GH directly into growth plates. Genetically altered strains of mice have also help to support this theory. When comparing mice that genetically over express GH and mice that over express insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), GH mice are larger. Those who support the dual effector theory site this evidence. Interestingly, when IGF-1 antiserum (it destroys IGF-1) is administered concomitantly with GH, all of the anabolic effects of GH are abolished. Clearly IGF-1 has got to be involved somewhere between the pituitary and the target tissue (i.e. muscle). The Somatomedin hypothesis clears things up somewhat.

The Somatomedin hypothesis states that GH exerts its growth promoting effects through IGF-1. More specifically, GH is first released from the pituitary and then travels to the liver and other peripheral tissues where it causes the synthesis and release of IGFs. IGFs work as endocrine growth factors, meaning that they travel in the blood to the target tissues after being released from cells that produced it, specifically the liver in this case. Many studies have been performed showing that animals that are GH deficient, systemic IGF-1 infusions lead to normal growth. Admittedly, the effects are similar to those observed after GH administration. In fact, additional studies have shown IGF-1 to be greatly inferior as an endocrine growth factor requiring almost 50 times the amount to exert that same effects of GH (Skottner, 1987). Recently rhIGF-1 has become widely more available and is currently approved form the treatment of HIV associated wasting. This increased availability allowed testing of this hypothesis in humans. Studies in human subjects with GH insensitivity (Laron syndrome) have consistently validated the somatomedin hypothesis (Rank, 1995; Savage, 1993). These results indicate that although IGF-1 might be the mediator of GH effects, it's not as simple as just getting the liver to release IGF-1.

So the main difference between these two theories is that the Dual effector theory states that GH doesn?t necessarily need IGF-1 to work, the Somatomedin hypothesis insists it does. In reality both theories are correct. It?s just that the Somatomedin hypothesis focuses on "circulating" IGF-1, the Dual Effector theory recognizes that although IGF-1 is still the active hormone, it doesn't have to come from the blood (liver), it can be produced on location by the very cells that use it.

In summary, by combining the Dual Effector theory and the Somatomedin hypothesis there are three main mechanisms by which GH makes things grow (Spagnoli,1996). First, the effects of GH on bone formation and organ growth are mediated by the endocrine action of IGF-1. As stated in the Somatomedin hypothesis, GH, released from the pituitary, causes increased production and release of IGF-1 into the general circulation. IGF-1 then travels to target tissues such as bones, organs, and muscle to cause anabolic effects.

Second, GH regulates the activity of IGF-1 by increasing the production of binding proteins (specifically IGFBP-3 and another important protein called the acid-labile subunit) that increase the half-life of IGF-1 from minutes to hours. Circulating proteases then act to break up the binding protein/hormone complex thereby releasing the IGF-1 in a controlled fashion over time. GH may even cause target tissues to produce IGFBP-3 increasing its effectiveness locally.

Third, GH may influence the activity of IGF-1 on an autocrine/paracrine level. Autocrine means that a hormone has an effect on the cell that produced it, paracrine means to have an effect on the "cell(s)" next to it as well. This is a completely localized effect, not dependent on the blood stream to carry things where you want them. Muscle growth from weight training is the result of IGF-1 being produced by the muscle cells themselves, not the liver. In fact, IGF-1 form the liver is genetically different from IGF-1 produced in your muscles. This information should explain why using IGF-1 systemically (from the blood stream) has been a hit and miss proposition." as so well stated by Bryan Haycock.

"Before I go on to my personal preferences on how to use IGF-1 and MGF, I think I should clearly state that I feel that the combination of those two (or even either one alone) is far superior to the use of hGH, for most purposes. In fact, lately I’ve been getting quite a bit of heat over my recommendations to use a combination of Lr3IGF-1 and MGF in lieu of hGH, and I think that at this point, it’s not too difficult to understand why I consider IGF-1 and MFG to be a very potent combination for muscular growth- far superior to hGH. IGF-1’s superiority to hGh is intuitive at some level, but has also been clearly elucidated clinically as well. In the following graphs taken from a rodent study comparing IGF-1 and hGH, a low dose as well as a high dose of IGF-1 was shown to be more anabolic than hGH. In comparison to hGH, IGF-1 produced an overall greater total protein content within the injected muscle as well as a greater final weight of the that muscle (called the "Tibialis Anterior" or TA) (9):

MESO-Rx (http://www.mesomorphosis.com)

So, in comparison (in this study), it seems to be the case that IGF-1 would be superior to hGH as an anabolic agent. In some clinical studies, that is not always the case, but in bodybuilders and athletes I’ve spoken to, greater results are often seen with IGF-1 over hGH - and it should be noted that they are often seen more quickly as well. And while an intact insulin and IGF-1 Receptor signaling system is necessary for hGH to produce an anabolic effect (10), an hGH receptor deficiency is not sufficient to stop IGF-1 from being anabolic. (11) This is another reason to believe that when you are using hGH, you’re really just hoping that it produces IGF-1, for an anabolic effect." by Anthony Roberts

If igf-1 is worthless ... there is just no way anyone can claim hgh is just so great. IMO, it is very hard to compare a 4 week cycle on an ED injection protocol or an EOD protocol for a few weeks longer depending on how much is injected (down regulation) to a months long hgh cycle, and anyone expecting major gains from igf-1 is fooling himself, that I can agree with ... results from igf-1 generally are something like 5-10 lbs of LBM/cycle, not impressive, but still valuable, for some only maybe 2 pounds, with increased vascularity, density, and fatloss.

Fair enough Mechano growth factor may have to be entered in the equation, but throwing igf-1 out the window ... is, IMO, a little extreme.
King's Trainer
Bro, that's a really long article. I have no idea what your point is regarding my post, but all I can say is show my some real life proof of gains. That article kinda reminds me of those ads you see in the back of the mags that have all this scientific data as to why the new xyz product is the next greatest product, but never works in real life.

We can break this down scientifically all you want, but real world results with IGF is something that I have never seen. By all means if anyone out there had any pics to prove me wrong I would love to see it. Until then I would suggest people stick to what they know works for sure and stop injecting themselves with all this pseudo scientific garbage.
Right bogus studies ... bogus studies my ass ... King Kamali openly claimed that Muscle Tech openly admitted that Muscke Tech gives him great results ... sure :think: and I am Napoleon dynamite ...

Me

My point is ... saying that igf-1 is worthless is one thing ... saying that it will make your cranium enlarge, and kill you is another thing.

Also, there are just too many things to concider, when a pro is talking about research drugs ... what other compounds are being used, etc etc ... Are his IFG-1R supersatured from the high doses of hgh, and insulin ... Down regulation ... etc etc ... IGF-1R desensitisation ...

Here is what I said in my previous post ... "If igf-1 is worthless ... there is just no way anyone can claim hgh is just so great. IMO, it is very hard to compare a 4 week cycle on an ED injection protocol or an EOD protocol for a few weeks longer depending on how much is injected (down regulation) to a months long hgh cycle, and anyone expecting major gains from igf-1 is fooling himself, that I can agree with ... results from igf-1 generally are something like 5-10 lbs of LBM/cycle, not impressive, but still valuable, for some only maybe 2 pounds, with increased vascularity, density, and fatloss.

Fair enough Mechano growth factor may have to be entered in the equation, but throwing igf-1 out the window ... is, IMO, a little extreme."

Also, as far as, real life results ... Well I've talked with quite a few ppl, who are totally satisfied with this compound ... but then again, if you only concider a cycle, which will put 20 lbs of muscle on you in 3 months valuable ... well in that case, I can, and have to agree igf-1 just isn't that great.
Trainer
I'm no big fan of GH either bro. I remember back say 15 years ago I was hearing stories of guys supposedly gaining 20 to 30 pounds of pure muscle on GH. It was all a load of BS. I have NEVER seen anyone gain that amount of muscle from GH with steroids combined or alone. Now, I have seen a lot of water weight from GH. Some pros that I personally know!! do between 9 and 18 iu's daily. They would never admit to it, but that is beside that point. Combine GH with 4 to 6 iu's of insulin and yes you will get huge, but I have seen guys make gains from insulin alone too. These gains are not always and most likely will not be of an aesthetic nature.

Taking GH in amount of 2 to 6 ius daily will produce results of a certain kind especially if you are older, say some fatloss and minute amouts of muscle, but taking micrograms of IGF imo is worthless. So that is the answer to Marc's question as to why Gh works but IGF doesn't Maybe if you would take milligrams of IGF daily it would work better? Then again maybe if I just upped my steriod dosage by 300 mgs per week I would get better results? Gh as far as I'm concerned is just an expensive fat burner.
Me:
Thanks for sharing your view on igf-1, and hgh really appreciate it. Too some extent, I do agree with you about the igf-1 dosage issue, and hgh being an expensive fat burner ... still valuable compounds, but a lot of hype is surrounding them ...

igf-1?? worthelss? maybe! ... poison? I doubt it very much.

Thanks again Magnum appreciate it.
Trainer
No prolem bro. We all have our opinions and we all learn from each other. I doubt that King actually meant IGF was literally poison. He has a flare of drama about him that if you don't understand you might take the wrong way.
And voilà, bottom line, it's safe to use igf-1 ... and KK was most probably on crack when he said that pro's where gonna drop dead from igf-1 ... but I felt that something had to be said, especially when half the board so to speak was almost worshiping Kamali for no apparent reasons.
There may be some dosage issues here. And, I'll look into that ... still, I would advice anyone going on a first igf-1 cycle to follow standard doses 40-60mcg's total/injection.
 
bioman

bioman

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I've never seen anyone claim that IGF-1 adds massive lbm. When it came out it here on AM in the R3 form, the marketing focus was more on the ability to cause satellite cells to become myofibrils...to which I say, yes, it most likely does. However that is not to be interpreted as R3 IGF being a serious anabolic. After running a few cycles the most I saw was some increased seperation between some muscle groups...which for a pro is serious consideration. For me, it's just a handy healing agent for injuries.

Safety-wise, KK is missing the big picture here. The amount and duration that the pros expose themselves to these various drugs..anabolic steroids, HGH, IGF, duiretics, thermos and the newer prostaglandins..coupled with a hypercaloric lifestyle..while pushing the body harder and harder to acheive more muscle gains is what does in the higher level competitors. The evidence is everywhere in the literature in regards to hypercalorism.

Maintaining this sort of calorie intake in and of itself raises endogenous IGF-1 levels which is a key marker for aging and age related diseases. It's a long term process so IMO, adding a cycle of IGF is really just a drop or two in the bucket.

All in all, it's too much of too many things that is at the root of BBer's short lifespans..not necessarily this compound or that IMO.
 

jenab123

New member
Awards
0
Bioman,
How would you apply IGF to healing injuries like, say for the purpose of discussion, a torn hamstring?
 
bioman

bioman

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
ASAP after the injury occurs and even at normal 40-80mcgs per day or EOD, it provides a big boost to the healing process. A muscle or tendon tear has lots of IGF-like receptors that get exposed so the healing response is pretty dramatic.

Search around, there are some injury IGF logs out there.
 

jenab123

New member
Awards
0
Thanks. My rat tore his hamstring deadlifting today.
 
bioman

bioman

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
R3 IGF-1, 4-8 grams Cissus, 1-2 grams celadrin, and ice are fixing up my Class II sprain pretty dang fast.
 

Similar threads


Top