hGH DOES up-regulate IGF-1, although MGF levels are even higher

[LakeMountD]

This further supports the fact that MGF could be the great mediator for increasing the length of an IGF-1 cycle. This study shows a huge increase in MGF from hGH administration and even though IGF-1 levels due increase, it increased much less than that of MGF. It has been said that LR3 IGF-1 administration can cause decreased hGH levels and therefore less MGF levels. Could be "one" of the reasons for gains tapering off as i have mentioned before.

The effect of recombinant human growth hormone and resistance training on IGF-I mRNA expression in the muscles of elderly men
M. Hameed1, K. H. W. Lange3, J. L. Andersen4, P. Schjerling4, M. Kjaer3, S. D. R. Harridge2 and G. Goldspink1

1 Department of Surgery2 Department of Physiology, Royal Free and University College Medical School, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, UK,3 Sports Medicine Research Unit, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark4 Department of Molecular Muscle Biology, Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark

The expression of two isoforms of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I): mechano growth factor (MGF) and IGF-IEa were studied in muscle in response to growth hormone (GH) administration with and without resistance training in healthy elderly men. A third isoform, IGF-IEb was also investigated in response to resistance training only. The subjects (age 74 ± 1 years, mean ±S.E.M) were assigned to either resistance training with placebo, resistance training combined with GH administration or GH administration alone. Real-time quantitative RT-PCR was used to determine mRNA levels in biopsies from the vastus lateralis muscle at baseline, after 5 and 12 weeks in the three groups. GH administration did not change MGF mRNA at 5 weeks, but significantly increased IGF-IEa mRNA (237%). After 12 weeks, MGF mRNA was significantly increased (80%) compared to baseline. Five weeks of resistance training significantly increased the mRNA expression of MGF (163%), IGF-IEa (68%) and IGF-IEb (75%). No further changes were observed after 12 weeks. However, after 5 weeks of training combined with GH treatment, MGF mRNA increased significantly (456%) and IGF-IEa mRNA by (167%). No further significant changes were noted at 12 weeks. The data suggest that when mechanical loading in the form of resistance training is combined with GH, MGF mRNA levels are enhanced. This may reflect an overall up-regulation of transcription of the IGF-I gene prior to splicing.

 

[idunk42]

Good job lake, keep 'em coming. :thumbsup:

So, like you said before, running GH with MGF would probably be a more adviseable stack than running GH with IGF? Or would it be best to run all 3 together, with maybe real low doses of igf?

 

[LakeMountD]

Good job lake, keep 'em coming. :thumbsup:

So, like you said before, running GH with MGF would probably be a more adviseable stack than running GH with IGF? Or would it be best to run all 3 together, with maybe real low doses of igf?

Not really sure, although it seems IGF and hGH would be the best stack with low dosages of IGF. The main thing seen with the addition of the IGF was the fat loss. I think hGH will produce enough MGF on its own that you only need the IGF.

 

[xtraflossy]

LMD, in that study you posted, did it mention the amount of gains of LBM within the 3 groups?
Im gurious to see:
A) what a 400+% increase in MGF, in terms of gains in lbm -may- have produced.
B) how would that comapre with the current levels of administration (of exogenous MGF).

 

[same_old]

This study shows a huge increase in MGF from hGH administration and even though IGF-1 levels due increase, it increased much less than that of MGF. It has been said that LR3 IGF-1 administration can cause decreased hGH levels and therefore less MGF levels. Could be "one" of the reasons for gains tapering off as i have mentioned before.

The subjects (age 74 ± 1 years, mean ±S.E.M) were assigned to either resistance training with placebo, resistance training combined with GH administration or GH administration alone. Real-time quantitative RT-PCR was used to determine mRNA levels in biopsies from the vastus lateralis muscle at baseline, after 5 and 12 weeks in the three groups. GH administration did not change MGF mRNA at 5 weeks, but significantly increased IGF-IEa mRNA (237%). After 12 weeks, MGF mRNA was significantly increased (80%) compared to baseline. Five weeks of resistance training significantly increased the mRNA expression of MGF (163%), IGF-IEa (68%) and IGF-IEb (75%). No further changes were observed after 12 weeks.However, after 5 weeks of training combined with GH treatment, MGF mRNA increased significantly (456%) and IGF-IEa mRNA by (167%). No further significant changes were noted at 12 weeks. The data suggest that when mechanical loading in the form of resistance training is combined with GH, MGF mRNA levels are enhanced. This may reflect an overall up-regulation of transcription of the IGF-I gene prior to splicing.

couple things to look at (see colors)

if you combine this study in your brain, you see certain important things emerge:

- training resulted in a sharp increase in MGF on its own
- GH eventually resulted in increased MGF (but not until week 12)
- the combo of training and GH had no greater an effect at 12 weeks than it did at 5 (granted it was a pronounced effect)

i would be curious if the continued GH administration (w/o training) caused increasing levels of MGF past week 12.

 

[LakeMountD]

LMD, in that study you posted, did it mention the amount of gains of LBM within the 3 groups?
Im gurious to see:
A) what a 400+% increase in MGF, in terms of gains in lbm -may- have produced.
B) how would that comapre with the current levels of administration (of exogenous MGF).

http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/555/1/231

That is the full article but I have searched it using ctrl + f in firefox and they do not mention how much lean mass was gained.

Yea same_old, the same things caught my attention as well. Very interesting.

 

[xtraflossy]

couple things to look at (see colors)

if you combine this study in your brain, you see certain important things emerge:

- training resulted in a sharp increase in MGF on its own
- GH eventually resulted in increased MGF (but not until week 12)
- the combo of training and GH had no greater an effect at 12 weeks than it did at 5 (granted it was a pronounced effect)

i would be curious if the continued GH administration (w/o training) caused increasing levels of MGF past week 12.

It shouldn't, as MGF is expressed in response to mechanical loading.
No training/loading would result in no MGF MGF expression beyond normal levels.

 

[LakeMountD]

It shouldn't, as MGF is expressed in response to mechanical loading.
No training/loading would result in no MGF MGF expression beyond normal levels.

Actually this isn't true. The study shows in the results section that MGF expression did increase with the GH only group, however, it increased less than that of what the exercise only group did. That was at the 5 week mark. The exercise + hGH group had a signficant increase of 456% as opposed to 165% of the exercise only group. The only difference seen was at the 12 week mark of the hGH only group. THe other two figures are at the 5 week mark.

 

[xtraflossy]

Actually this isn't true. The study shows in the results section that MGF expression did increase with the GH only group, however, it increased less than that of what the exercise only group did. That was at the 5 week mark. The exercise + hGH group had a signficant increase of 456% as opposed to 165% of the exercise only group. The only difference seen was at the 12 week mark of the hGH only group. THe other two figures are at the 5 week mark.

I guess you could expect "baseline" levels to increase with the increased GH. But like you pointed out, That increase was LESS (GH only) then the Workout Only group.

In other words, Those who worked out only had a greater increase in MGF expression then those receiving GH only.
- That is what I ment when the level of expression wouldnt/shouldnt be increased- beyone normal levels (in my mind I ment "normal levels" = MGF expressed in Training individuals, no GH)
Of course, leave it to me to totally miss the point from time to time.

 

[LakeMountD]

Yea but don't forget, the workout group levels didn't increase after week 5. And frankly it could have been a lot earlier than that, they just said from week 5 to week 12 there was no change. You never know if the hGH only group had a big increase beyond that. That is the problem with some of these studies, they dont take it far enough.

I am curious if people are having more success with MGF in AA then BW. I have heard people are, but not positive.

 

[xtraflossy]

Well, the next time I get some I am going to use the AA or BA I ordered a while ago. But I dont know when that would be- (and I dont think it will be "hooked up" like I/we were thinking it would )

 

[SD1959]

Umm, guys, all due respect but I don't know how to fully decifer the scientific stats. What's the take home here? Much obliged, Sd

 

[LakeMountD]

We had an earlier debate about whether MGF levels were significantly raised or not with hGH administartion. If you go to the study above and read the bold part in the middle of the paragraph it shows that there was a 456% increase in MGF levels.

 

[SD1959]

We had an earlier debate about whether MGF levels were significantly raised or not with hGH administartion. If you go to the study above and read the bold part in the middle of the paragraph it shows that there was a 456% increase in MGF levels.

Thank you. In your opinion, gh and igf are a better combo than any of the current available options (non-aas)?

 

[same_old]

Thank you. In your opinion, gh and igf are a better combo than any of the current available options (non-aas)?

list the options you are thinking of i bet LMD will give you his opinion.

okay, LMD will give you his opinion whether you ask for it or not :icon_lol: