Wood
New member
- Awards
- 0
How much of a difference is there really. I'm very comfortable with sub q injections but I just can't seem to get there with IM. Would I really be losing much efficiency?
It's been discussed many times that IGF should NEVER be used sub-q.How much of a difference is there really. I'm very comfortable with sub q injections but I just can't seem to get there with IM. Would I really be losing much efficiency?
I would think the same concerns could be applied to peg MGF as well, but everyone does that sub-q. I think these concerns about systemic growth are overblown. As well as the claims of hyperplasia and "permanent" new muscle. I call BS.It's been discussed many times that IGF should NEVER be used sub-q.
You do not want systemic effects of IGF on other parts of the body, especially your intestines which will definitely get a good amount if the IGF if you sub-q it. (Your gut will grow nicely).
Local IM PWO for IGF so the increased PWO saturation of receptors in the muscles trained will take up most of the IGF. Minimal amounts will go systemic using this protocol.
Take Care.
Regarding you comments on MGF, they are not correct.I would think the same concerns could be applied to peg MGF as well, but everyone does that sub-q. I think these concerns about systemic growth are overblown. As well as the claims of hyperplasia and "permanent" new muscle. I call BS.
Do you realize the level of IGF from the GH doses people take is extremely miniscule compared to the actual doses of IGF-1lr3 used?I mean think about it. Pros are on massive HGH year round, fllooded with systemic IGF1. Then they retire and shrink back down to normal. No more huge guts, no freaky permanent muscle Look at Levrone or Yates or any of them.
Yeah I am aware of these issues. I would point out that most of the claims regarding hyperplasia, intestinal growth, site vs systemic injections, etc. are conjectural and speculative as well. As far as not being backed up by in-vivo studies, or frankly, any anectdotal evidence either. Yes I know what the theory says.Regarding you comments on MGF, they are not correct.
This is not the case with MGF as it has a different method of action than IGF-1. MGF (IGF-1Ec) is responsible for cell pooling/proliferation.
IGF-1, on the other hand, is responsible for fusion/differentiation of the previously pooled cells, which causes the actual growth.
Do you realize the level of IGF from the GH doses people take is extremely miniscule compared to the actual doses of IGF-1lr3 used?
I think you are not realizing this key important fact in your assumption.
As far as how they "look" is pure speculation and opinion as interpreted by you, nothing factual that supports anything discussed here. It can be due to so many different factors that have nothing to do with GH at all.
There is no reason to be condescending here, OK... I never implied anything to warrent the tone you are using or conclusion of your statement, so it just comes across more like a "less than playfull" slap rather than a statement with actual substance to it.Now if you can, please refer me to all these people with permanent new muscle cells and giant intestines you seem to be in touch with.
Well then, if you understand the issue and theories (as you say) regarding the differences in action of IGF-1 and MGF why on earth would you make the following contradictory comment to my previous response?Yeah I am aware of these issues. I would point out that most of the claims regarding hyperplasia, intestinal growth, site vs systemic injections, etc. are conjectural and speculative as well. As far as not being backed up by in-vivo studies, or frankly, any anectdotal evidence either. Yes I know what the theory says.
It just seems you are very "wishy washy" with what you imply that you understand. I'm not saying you don't understand it or that it's a bad thing if you don't, just that some of your responses baffle the heck out of me."I would think the same concerns could be applied to peg MGF as well, but everyone does that sub-q. "
I hope you can just relax until there are some in vivo studies that can help you formulate a more solid opinion.Hyperplasia is a myth as far as I am concerned. And so are a lot of the other IGF claims. I am not saying it does not "work", nor am I saying there are no dangers, I am saying we do not know how it works or what the dangers may be. Yes I have used it.
I love CJC, and I agree with you here if "by issues" you are referring to hyperplasia. This is why:I personally prefer CJC1295 myself. Avoids all these issues or at least most of them.
You do make some valid arguments, jenab123. It has made me ponder why I beleive what I beleive. Fact is I firmly beleive in the science of it because this is what these compounds do naturally, or are capable of doing in the body.
This along with my own experiences and others to boot, as pumbertot mentions. So yes, this is my "opinion" only
I love CJC, and I agree with you here if "by issues" you are referring to hyperplasia. This is why:
I do not beleive that the levels of IGF are increased enough to produce any significant hyperplasia with CJC (at the common 2mg/wk dosage protocol). The endogenous IGF increase due to CJC is actually "vanilla" IGF-1 which has a shorter half life than Lr3 and in MUCH smaller levels than what is used with exogenous Lr3.
So you may see here that the "issues" with Lr3 are somewhat different than elevated endogenous IGF-1 in this respect.
Take Care.
have you never thought about one of the reasons for muscle memory is because hyperplasia has taken place during all the hard years of muscle building? makes perfect sense to me.From personal experience IGF works when you’re on it and once you stop the gains slowly disappear…That’s basically with every compound. IGF just works quicker if you want to add a little size to a lagging body part do to genetics.
I don’t care what anyone says about GH or IGF. When you stop working out, taking compounds and eating it all goes BYE BYE!!!!!!!!!! The only good thing about years of hard work, taking BB type drugs is it comes back so fast it’s just amazing!
If you think what you’re taking now to gain muscle tissue is going to be permanent you’re fooled…Your body will only hold so much muscle naturally. It’s hard gain, easy go..Sucks but that’s life!
I agree Pumber!have you never thought about one of the reasons for muscle memory is because hyperplasia has taken place during all the hard years of muscle building? makes perfect sense to me.
and to me proof that igf causes hyperplasia is that after a lenghty period of using it, if you take time off training then get back to it the localised size gains re-appear much quicker next time around. I have seen this in others and I intend to see it in myself after I have my post-op 4 month layoff.
I dont need you or anybody else to tell me that just because they believe igf doesnt cause hyperplasia, it doesnt.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Confused about subQ injections of igf-1 lr3 | IGF-1/GH | 2 | ||
Every oral/sublingual IGF/Deer Antler extract | Supplement Logs | 1 | ||
IGF-1LR3 sub q?? | IGF-1/GH | 10 | ||
IGF1 LR3 IM no different with SubQ | IGF-1/GH | 5 | ||
HGH and IGF-1 not controlled substance | IGF-1/GH | 30 |