IGF sub q instead of IM

[Wood]

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?

 

[Bobaslaw]

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.
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 may 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.

 

[jenab123]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Bobaslaw]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[jenab123]

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.

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.

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. 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.

 

[Bobaslaw]

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.

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.

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.

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?

"I would think the same concerns could be applied to peg MGF as well, but everyone does that sub-q. "

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.

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 hope you can just relax until there are some in vivo studies that can help you formulate a more solid opinion.
Obvioiusly you have trouble balancing out your feelings here as you contradict your views with statements like "Hyperplasia is a myth as far as I am concerned", and then moving on to say "I am not saying it does not "work". Which is it?
Don't get me wrong, it's OK to be unsure about things and want solid tangible "let me touch it" proof before you buy into somehthing.
Quite frankly, the current knowledge and experience using IGF is documented in scientific theory and user research experience. This is the best we have. These facts speak for themselves and are supportive of quite a few user experiences, including members in this forum. Until there are actual clinical trials for this purpose or some forum member lets you biopsy their bicep, this is the most factual information you have the luxury of getting. Just because there are no specific studies for this application DOES NOT negate the current evidence, theory, first hand experiences, nor the educated protocols based on the actual science behind all of this.

 

[jenab123]

Bobaslaw,
Nothing personal, just weary of hearing the same arguments repeated over and over, with no substantiation. And frankly tired of bad science, or arguments masquerading as science which are no better than wild speculation. It is not you per se. Prove the hyperplasia. Without it none of what you (or anyone else repeating your arguments) are saying has any validity. And saying we'll have to wait for studies. Is that science? You've concluded something is going on with no evidence, yet criticizing me for the same. All I am saying is your (argument's) conclusions are not supportable. I'd listen more closely even so if you were a PHD researcher in this field or MD specializing in this area. Are you?

It is as if Grunt's very useful original post, which has been copied and duplicated on 50 different boards, is all anyone knows or ever bothered to learn. Everyone read it and memorized it and went no further.

Just consider one thing, as a thought experiment, and I'll shut up. What if there is no hyperplasia going on? What does this imply regarding IGF and MGF? What does it mean regarding site vs. systemic, intestines, organ growth, etc. etc. What is the mechanism for people gaining size immediately on IGF or MGF? Why does it go away after cessation?

Don't react emotionally as if someone attacking your arguments is attacking you, just play a what if? scenario. A lot of real science is done this way.

I personally prefer CJC1295 myself. Avoids all these issues or at least most of them.

 

[pumbertot]

i think there are many that have found when off training they have kept more mass than before and this is the basis for believing hyperplasia does exist.
well I know im experiencing good localised gains where ive been injecting and no its not just swelling as it is far beyond what I experienced whilst site injecting AAS and those were at 10-30 times the volume than the miniscule 0.1-0.2ml of igf/mgf.

as for proof of enlarged intestines, look no further than many top pros.

i wouldnt disagree CJC1295 is one amazing peptide but it is not doing what igf is.

edit: cant find the study, not sure if I dreamed it or what,lol.

 

[Bobaslaw]

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 personally prefer CJC1295 myself. Avoids all these issues or at least most of them.

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.

 

[Peeodee]

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!

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.

 

[pumbertot]

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!

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.

 

[Bobaslaw]

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.

I agree Pumber!

Also, think about this example... 2 twins who have tragically stopped working out for a few years and reverted to 15" arms. One guy may have greated muscle fiber density than the other. Lets say this is due to years one of them did a number of IGF cycles. Lets say that one has 10% more fiber count per volume of muscle. Muscle Size will be seen with a combination of muscle fiber count and muscle fiber size. Well, that one twin with a higher count will need to experience much less hypertrophy in an equal timeframe to acheive the same muscular size of the other guy. This would definitely be exhibited as "bouncing back much quicker effect" or muscle memory, or whatever you may want to call it. Also, this means that equal hypertrophy in both will start to exhibit greated differneces in size (In the IGF twin) directly proportional to the degree of hypertrophy acheived.
Example: 10% more muscle fibers may not make a big size difference when they are atrophied or immature fibers. But the more hypertrophy they go through the proportional size difference will become more significant and evident.

This is definitely my opinion based on educated observation of the theory behind this, just to be clear.

 

[comacho]

nobody is calling nobody liars so let us all have a good conversation going

i always found this old post useful Invalid Link Removed

especially N4cer's post because he's used it when it first came out according to his post.



my question is if it is site specific and creates local growth, what area does it cover and how specific is it?

can i shoot my lower ab muscles? outer head on my tris? waht about my inner quad tear drop?

did you guys see the post in the sticky section i think, someone said Igf when attached LR3 version will not act exactly like the regular IGF. so its something else at that point.

ive seen many posts regarding site growth and many posts about no difference, so i think this argument may never end? lol

i say stick to wahtever works for you, and try many protocols. thats my plan since i just started messing around with peps.

the point is to grow, not about winning the debate on the forum.

unrelated but all these chinese media IGF lr3 around...is it human recombinant IGF? or mice etc?