7.2mg's/day of IGF-1

[Royd The Noyd]

Ok, so I thought the thread title would grab some attention and I am NOT actually using that much IGF-1 (or anywhere close for that matter) however the following is a very good read.

Increlex is basically IGF-1 in an aqueous solution (BA I believe). It is produced in the U.S. by a company called Tercica. It is prescribed to children diagnosed with IGF deficiency (short kids).

Now the following link shows several interesting things. First read the ADVERSE REACTIONS section. Overall side effects were relatively low. This was over 3.9 years of continuous use in clinical trials. Note: no mention of organ growth (tonsils yes). It does not specifically state these items were directly measured however.

The second interesting thing is the suggested dosing. .04 to .08 mg/kg twice daily! Now to a 200lb pound male this equates to 3.6 to 7.2mg's of IGF-1 two times daily (sub q).

So this leads me to ask, does anyone think the 10-50mcg/day dosing protocols are under dosing IGF?

Clearly 7.2mg's would be extremely expensive. But it seems odd to me there weren't more adverse reactions.

Note: I dont have 20 posts yet so I cannot link this...but you should be able to figure out the below:

increlex .com/increlex_pi.pdf

 

[sfearl1]

muy interesante

 

[mattikus]

De acuerdo .

Mucho igf.

 

[nycste]

subbed wanna see some feedback

 

[Bobaslaw]

Ok, so I thought the thread title would grab some attention and I am NOT actually using that much IGF-1 (or anywhere close for that matter) however the following is a very good read.

Increlex is basically IGF-1 in an aqueous solution (BA I believe). It is produced in the U.S. by a company called Tercica. It is prescribed to children diagnosed with IGF deficiency (short kids).

Now the following link shows several interesting things. First read the ADVERSE REACTIONS section. Overall side effects were relatively low. This was over 3.9 years of continuous use in clinical trials. Note: no mention of organ growth (tonsils yes). It does not specifically state these items were directly measured however.

The second interesting thing is the suggested dosing. .04 to .08 mg/kg twice daily! Now to a 200lb pound male this equates to 3.6 to 7.2mg's of IGF-1 two times daily (sub q).

So this leads me to ask, does anyone think the 10-50mcg/day dosing protocols are under dosing IGF?

Clearly 7.2mg's would be extremely expensive. But it seems odd to me there weren't more adverse reactions.

Note: I dont have 20 posts yet so I cannot link this...but you should be able to figure out the below:

increlex .com/increlex_pi.pdf

Yes, interesting... BUT.....

This study is like apples to oranges.

These are kids with a growth difficiency and the goals here are far from the goals in BBing.
First of all, these kids have a low systemic IGF level to begin with and have an dosing protocol that is based on increasing systemic IGF for the body as a whole... Their dose needs to be greater to acheive "normal" levels.
Second of all they do not lift weights and try to acheive "local" muscluar hyperplasia, using a more appropriately tailored protocol as we here do.

After you train, IGF receptor saturation in muscle is expressed to a much greater degree and will utilize as much IGF as can hit it locally before it goes systemic. In this application we only need a certain amount of IGF and only choose to use it within this window. Injecting IGF PWO locally to acheive this CANNOT be compared equally with a systemic dose, especially since it is not geared for performance enhancement.
If we were to use exogenous IGF systemically (not that we would), only a small fraction would even be active at the target muscle receptors we were concerned about.
How much? I don't know. But I do know that based on this fact this particular study is useless for the application we are using here.
Actually I could make a real wild guess and say that a local IGF-1 injection into a bicep probably efficiently agonises less than a 1/2kg of muscle, maybe less. This may or may not be correct, but goes to show that when you come down to the amounts of IGF per kg, the doses are not as far apart as they seem at first without regard to the type of delivery being used. Not to mention, the losses of IGF systemically to other physiological prosecess and other receptors (non muscle, or receptors that we don't care to be agonised like intestinal receptors.)
Also, If the IGF in this study is not lr3 and is rhIGF-1 than a chunk of it will become inactive by IGFBP's, so that will lower the total usable amount as well...
I will reiterate, the doses used in the study are such as to increase levels in kids that have a deficiency to begin with AND it is not intended for the kind of protocol that we use IGF-1 for locally PWO.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

Take Care.

 

[Royd The Noyd]

These are kids with a growth difficiency and the goals here are far from the goals in BBing.

Agreed. However the dosing difference is significant. And IGF levels as we know decrease with age. Also deficient or not it does not explain the lack of side effects. Where is the GH gut?

After you train, IGF receptor saturation in muscle is expressed to a much greater degree and will utilize as much IGF as can hit it locally before it goes systemic.

Do you have anything scientific to support this? I am just not well versed in this area and I often hear it stated on forums but I dont believe I've seen anything proving this...

In this application we only need a certain amount of IGF and only choose to use it within this window. Injecting IGF PWO locally to acheive this CANNOT be compared equally with a systemic dose, especially since it is not geared for performance enhancement.
If we were to use exogenous IGF systemically (not that we would), only a small fraction would even be active at the target muscle receptors we were concerned about.
How much? I don't know. But I do know that based on this fact this particular study is useless for the application we are using here.
Actually I could make a real wild guess and say that a local IGF-1 injection into a bicep probably efficiently agonises less than a 1/2kg of muscle, maybe less. This may or may not be correct, but goes to show that when you come down to the amounts of IGF per kg, the doses are not as far apart as they seem at first without regard to the type of delivery being used. Not to mention, the losses of IGF systemically to other physiological prosecess and other receptors (non muscle, or receptors that we don't care to be agonised like intestinal receptors.)
Also, If the IGF in this study is not lr3 and is rhIGF-1 than a chunk of it will become inactive by IGFBP's, so that will lower the total usable amount as well...

I'd agree with those assumptions for the most part.

 

[Bobaslaw]

Agreed. However the dosing difference is significant. And IGF levels as we know decrease with age. Also deficient or not it does not explain the lack of side effects. Where is the GH gut?

Before you ask this question, you must first know what the plasma IGF-1 baseline levels are in the subjects treated with these doses? If these doses bring them to normal, or slightly above normal, then there is a reason for lack of gut growth...
I just can't assume anything without knowing this fact... Also, I am not sure about IGF-1 receptor expression or sensetivity in these "deficient" subjects either, especially for their age group. These are just unknowns I'd need more information on to have any kind of conclusion.

Do you have anything scientific to support this? I am just not well versed in this area and I often hear it stated on forums but I dont believe I've seen anything proving this....

Yes, here is one. This study involves elderly subjects. I am sure Grunt76 could point you to additional (more pertinent) studies on this subject, that reflect increased PWO induced receptor expression:

Invalid Link Removed

Abstract
Age-related sarcopenia inhibits mobility, increasing the risk for developing many diseases, including diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, and heart disease. Tissue plasticity, or the ability to regenerate following stress, has been a subject of question in aging humans. We assessed the impact of 10-weeks of resistance training on markers of skeletal muscle plasticity and insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1) receptor density in a sub sample of subjects who, in an earlier study, demonstrated enhanced immunohistochemical labeling of IGF following resistance training. Muscle biopsies from the vastus lateralis of five elderly men and women were taken prior to and following 10 weeks of resistance training (N = 3) or a control period (N = 2). Immunogold labeling and quantitative electron microscopy techniques were used to analyze markers of IGF-1 receptor density and tissue plasticity. The experimental subjects showed a 161 ± 93.7% increase in Z band damage following resistance training. Myofibrillar central nuclei increased 296 ± 120% (P = 0. 029) in the experimental subjects. Changes in the percent of damaged Z bands were associated with alterations in the presence of central nuclei (r = 0.668; P = 0.0347). Post hoc analysis revealed that the relative pre/post percent changes in myofibrillar Z band damage and central nuclei were not statistically different between the control and exercise groups. Exercise training increased myofibrillar IGF-1 receptor densities in the exercise subjects (P = 0.008), with a non-significant increase in the control group. Labeling patterns suggested enhanced receptor density around the Z bands, sarcolemma, and mitochondrial and nuclear membranes. Findings from this study suggest that the age-related downregulation of the skeletal muscle IGF-1 system may be reversed to some extent with progressive resistance training. Furthermore, skeletal muscle tissue plasticity in the frail elderly is maintained at least to some extent as exemplified by the enhancement of IGF-1 receptor density and markers of tissue regeneration

 

[shamank]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Bobaslaw]

Invalid Link Removed

Good thread! I remember this discussion...

Pretty much supports most of my conclusions above.

There was a statement that the mean IGF level from this treatment protocol was only around 238ng/ml. Not sure how factual that is since I did not search for this myself, but it does support what I suspected to be true...

 

[Royd The Noyd]

Good thread! I remember this discussion...

Pretty much supports most of my conclusions above.

There was a statement that the mean IGF level from this treatment protocol was only around 238ng/ml. Not sure how factual that is since I did not search for this myself, but it does support what I suspected to be true...

What is the ave level for a healthy adult male?

 

[Bobaslaw]

What is the ave level for a healthy adult male?

238ng/ml is actually on the lower end for a child.

IGF Ranges below:

Age.............Female...........Male
12-15 years 187-676 ng/mL 108-558 ng/mL
16-17 years 143-603 ng/mL 182-532 ng/mL
18-24 years 128-488 ng/mL 158-497 ng/mL
25-29 years 89-397 ng/mL 112-402 ng/mL
30-34 years 71-352 ng/mL 89-350 ng/mL
35-39 years 63-330 ng/mL 77-323 ng/mL
40-44 years 58-318 ng/mL 70-307 ng/mL
45-49 years 54-307 ng/mL 66-296 ng/mL
50-54 years 49-292 ng/mL 61-285 ng/mL
55-59 years 42-272 ng/mL 56-271 ng/mL
60-64 years 35-248 ng/mL 50-255 ng/mL
65-69 years
70-74 years 22-204 ng/mL 38-223 ng/mL
75 years + 21-199 ng/mL 35-213 ng/mL