Did I mess up my LR3 IGF-1?

[longrob]

To make my 0.6% solution of Acetic Acid for reconstitution, I filtered a solution of distilled white vinegar and Bacteriostatic Water.

Considering my BW is 0.9% Benzyl Alcohol, and IGF is degraded by BW, did I mess up my IGF?

I will recon with distilled water next time, but am just wondering.

 

[Bobaslaw]

To make my 0.6% solution of Acetic Acid for reconstitution, I filtered a solution of distilled white vinegar and Bacteriostatic Water.

Considering my BW is 0.9% Benzyl Alcohol, and IGF is degraded by BW, did I mess up my IGF?

I will recon with distilled water next time, but am just wondering.

Yes, sorry to say you messed up. The process calls for distilled water, not BW as the Benzyl Alcohol is not beneficial to the optimum stability of IGF-1...

Please use this great guide that Papapumpsd created:

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/igf-1-gh/95619-ultimate-igf-1lr3.html

 

[DAdams91982]

Well.. prior, IGF used to be recon with BW, before the advent of using AA.

BW degrades it quicker, but if you utilize your IGF ASAP, it should give you results.

Adasm

 

[Bobaslaw]

Well.. prior, IGF used to be recon with BW, before the advent of using AA.

BW degrades it quicker, but if you utilize your IGF ASAP, it should give you results.

Adasm

Thats the point though, isn't it?

You WONT utilize a mg of IGF ASAP as you say, if you follow a 3-4 times/week 40-50mcg PWO regimen... This is much to long of a time IMO, (over 5 weeks) for IGF to be in contact with the BA in the BW.

remember also that what was known in the beginning about IGF and handling has changed due to the learning curve about the substance and properties. BA may have been used readily at one point, but not so anymore as even the major manufacturers like Gropep recommend 100mM AA or 10mM HCL based solvents.

I only agree to use BA or BW if you have multiple 100mcg vials that will only remain in BA or BW for a couple of days. Any longer and you are wasting your peptide to the effects of denaturation..

So again, this is not optimum for the storage of 1mg of IGF they way it will be used by the majority that follow Grunts protocols here on this forum...

 

[pumbertot]

Thats the point though, isn't it?

You WONT utilize a mg of IGF ASAP as you say, if you follow a 3-4 times/week 40-50mcg PWO regimen... This is much to long of a time IMO, (over 5 weeks) for IGF to be in contact with the BA in the BW.

remember also that what was known in the beginning about IGF and handling has changed due to the learning curve about the substance and properties. BA may have been used readily at one point, but not so anymore as even the major manufacturers like Gropep recommend 100mM AA or 10mM HCL based solvents.

I only agree to use BA or BW if you have multiple 100mcg vials that will only remain in BA or BW for a couple of days. Any longer and you are wasting your peptide to the effects of denaturation..

So again, this is not optimum for the storage of 1mg of IGF they way it will be used by the majority that follow Grunts protocols here on this forum...

totally agree, funnily enough with this highly intelligent Polski.
yes i used to use BW with 100mcg vials which I would share with training partner so we were using it right away. I belive you would have aorund a week to use your 1mg before it degrades to a high degree based on the way regular MGF degrades in BW.

 

[DAdams91982]

Thats the point though, isn't it?

You WONT utilize a mg of IGF ASAP as you say, if you follow a 3-4 times/week 40-50mcg PWO regimen... This is much to long of a time IMO, (over 5 weeks) for IGF to be in contact with the BA in the BW.

remember also that what was known in the beginning about IGF and handling has changed due to the learning curve about the substance and properties. BA may have been used readily at one point, but not so anymore as even the major manufacturers like Gropep recommend 100mM AA or 10mM HCL based solvents.

I only agree to use BA or BW if you have multiple 100mcg vials that will only remain in BA or BW for a couple of days. Any longer and you are wasting your peptide to the effects of denaturation..

So again, this is not optimum for the storage of 1mg of IGF they way it will be used by the majority that follow Grunts protocols here on this forum...

I NEVER Said this was ideal.. BUT he already mixed it. I personally utilize 120mcgs a day. No use in throwing it away IF he can get some benefits. I agree AA is the way to go, but that isnt quite available for him at this moment.

Adams

 

[Bobaslaw]

I NEVER Said this was ideal.. BUT he already mixed it. I personally utilize 120mcgs a day. No use in throwing it away IF he can get some benefits. I agree AA is the way to go, but that isnt quite available for him at this moment.

Adams

OK, fine, you never said that it ws ideal

Your 120mcg IGF-1 dosages are very questionable tho (ridiculous actually) but thats a debate for a different thread.
I take it you do not agree with any of Grunts logic (or Palumbo for that matter) on IGF dosage protocols...

 

[DAdams91982]

OK, fine, you never said that it ws ideal

Your 120mcg IGF-1 dosages are very questionable tho (ridiculous actually) but thats a debate for a different thread.
I take it you do not agree with any of Grunts logic (or Palumbo for that matter) on IGF dosage protocols...

No, Grunt is very respectable on his logic. In fact I followed his protocols initially. But everyone being different, and different levels of IGF becoming supraphysiological for each person, I found these levels to actually give me results. I am not questioning anyones logic here, I am presenting my own with said hormone. We dont have the luxery here for supporting a study concerning concerning a generous number of people. We can only produce our own expieriences.

So call my way rediculous if you wish, but if you look at my history, I am honest, and objective. Not concerning myself with what other find to be a perfect dose, essentially pidgeon holing (sp?) every person into the same catagory.

With that said, I will leave this issue to you bob.

Adams

 

[Bobaslaw]

No, Grunt is very respectable on his logic. In fact I followed his protocols initially. But everyone being different, and different levels of IGF becoming supraphysiological for each person, I found these levels to actually give me results. I am not questioning anyones logic here, I am presenting my own with said hormone. We dont have the luxery here for supporting a study concerning concerning a generous number of people. We can only produce our own expieriences.

So call my way rediculous if you wish, but if you look at my history, I am honest, and objective. Not concerning myself with what other find to be a perfect dose, essentially pidgeon holing (sp?) every person into the same catagory.

With that said, I will leave this issue to you bob.

Adams

Just to clarify, I meant the " dosage" seemed ridiculous as in "ridiculously high". I did not mean to come across as you yourself being ridiculous

BTW, I totally respect your answer and reasoning as you are just observing the real world results as they apply to the individual (you). Theoretical protocols are only as good as the real world results they expected to produce.

I am curious what results you are using to judge that the dosage you are using is working.
Many ppl use observed side effects to judge the action of IGF-1 which is not always ideal. By side effects I mean the common "pumps" or "hypo"... These are less than ideal to judge any degree of hyperplasia. Honestly I think it is very difficult to distinguish the subtle effects of any hyperplasia to begin with. Also the fullness from the added insulin like nutrition partitioning/glucose shuttling is transitory as well and could give the impression of gaining size.
I really don't think anyone can visually see hyperplasia exhibited, especially to the degree IGF-1 would cause it by itself unless they are extremely familiar with their body. I think you would need a good degree of hypertrophy in any new fibers to see additional growth. Then, ofcourse, how sure are you then that the "added" hypertrophy is due to new fiber hypertrophy or just greater hypertrophy of existing fibers, especially since many don't just use IGF but also cycle gear or PHs too...
Basically you'd have to be VERY familiar with how your body responds and reacts to each kind of individual training, diet and substance use, to be able to compare properly...

Anyhow, enough digression, just can't stop sometimes.

sorry for totally hijacking this thread. Look who is the ridiculous one here, lol

Like I said, I do respect your answer, bro

Take Care.

 

[pumbertot]

Just to clarify, I meant the " dosage" seemed ridiculous as in "ridiculously high". I did not mean to come across as you yourself being ridiculous

BTW, I totally respect your answer and reasoning as you are just observing the real world results as they apply to the individual (you). Theoretical protocols are only as good as the real world results they expected to produce.

I am curious what results you are using to judge that the dosage you are using is working.
Many ppl use observed side effects to judge the action of IGF-1 which is not always ideal. By side effects I mean the common "pumps" or "hypo"... These are less than ideal to judge any degree of hyperplasia. Honestly I think it is very difficult to distinguish the subtle effects of any hyperplasia to begin with. Also the fullness from the added insulin like nutrition partitioning/glucose shuttling is transitory as well and could give the impression of gaining size.
I really don't think anyone can visually see hyperplasia exhibited, especially to the degree IGF-1 would cause it by itself unless they are extremely familiar with their body. I think you would need a good degree of hypertrophy in any new fibers to see additional growth. Then, ofcourse, how sure are you then that the "added" hypertrophy is due to new fiber hypertrophy or just greater hypertrophy of existing fibers, especially since many don't just use IGF but also cycle gear or PHs too...
Basically you'd have to be VERY familiar with how your body responds and reacts to each kind of individual training, diet and substance use, to be able to compare properly...

Anyhow, enough digression, just can't stop sometimes.

sorry for totally hijacking this thread. Look who is the ridiculous one here, lol

Like I said, I do respect your answer, bro

Take Care.

nice and short answer as always Bob.
yes you are right about having to be very familiar with ones body. but I think most 'serious' BBs are, we know exactly when something is giving us additional size and in time will come to realise if hyperplasia has occured.
my own time of reckoning is upon me as you well know, will finally find out what new muscle fibres are there to help me retain mass while out of the gym.

 

[Bobaslaw]

nice and short answer as always Bob.
yes you are right about having to be very familiar with ones body. but I think most 'serious' BBs are, we know exactly when something is giving us additional size and in time will come to realise if hyperplasia has occured.
my own time of reckoning is upon me as you well know, will finally find out what new muscle fibres are there to help me retain mass while out of the gym.

Exactly Pumbertot, I agree 100% with this way of judging hyperplasia.
If one reduces/stops training and LBM is reduced to a maintenance level or less, you could possibly see if you are holding more natural LBM than usual in such a circumstance.
Seeing a lesser degree of atrophy as the size lost due to hypertrophy would be somwhat displaced by the added volume of new muscle fibers due to hyperplasia.
Obviously gains from gear/PHs would not come into play with this way of making a comparison IMO, since those gains (hypertrophic) would not be retained in this circumstance to such a level.
Unfortunately this is not a scenario I would volenteer for to make such a comparison and I only see you using it to judge effects only if it is necessary (like after surgery).

BTW I hope everyone here wishes Pumbertot well on his upcoming surgery this next week! I'm pulling for ya bro, as you definitely know

Take Care.

 

[pumbertot]

Exactly Pumbertot, I agree 100% with this way of judging hyperplasia.
If one reduces/stops training and LBM is reduced to a maintenance level or less, you could possibly see if you are holding more natural LBM than usual in such a circumstance.
Seeing a lesser degree of atrophy as the size lost due to hypertrophy would be somwhat displaced by the added volume of new muscle fibers due to hyperplasia.
Obviously gains from gear/PHs would not come into play with this way of making a comparison IMO, since those gains (hypertrophic) would not be retained in this circumstance to such a level.
Unfortunately this is not a scenario I would volenteer for to make such a comparison and I only see you using it to judge effects only if it is necessary (like after surgery).

BTW I hope everyone here wishes Pumbertot well on his upcoming surgery this next week! I'm pulling for ya bro, as you definitely know

Take Care.

Thanks bro and thanks for all your help. Leaving for the airport in 3 hours so could be my last post on here for a few days depending on how near a net cafe is to the hotel.

 

[Cal]

LR3 was originally dissolved in BA when it came onto the bb'ing scene. It worked great, even after months. If the people claiming that it's bad would check the pH, they'd probably find what I've concluded: that the pH is very similar to AA. After all, pH is the issue that would harm it. Beware the parrots that claim they know, but haven't experienced.