first of all, longR3 was not developed to have a longer half life in the body, in fact it has a shorter half life in the body than IGF-1. longR3 was developed for in-vitro use to study the effects of IGF-1 on cell cultures without the interference of binding proteins
It is very important to remember that IGF-1 binding proteins serve important functions. IGF-1BP3 for instance protects IGF-1 from degradation (greatly extending its half-life) and delivers it to specific tissues in a regulated fashion. An IGF-1 that does not bind to binding proteins (LongR3) will run amok in the body, stimulating tissues in a potentially haphazard fashion.
I wrote an article on this and it was published in musculardevelopment. The science of IGF-1 is very complicated and alot of its association with cancer is closely tied to its relationship with binding proteins.
I think longR3 in the short term might have benefits (healing of connective tissue in particular) but for long term use you are really rolling the dice. This is a potent growth factor that can do as much bad is it can do if things don't go right
GH releasers are much farther upstream in the whole GH/IGF-1 cascade from IGF-1 and the farther upstream you provide the artificial influence the more naturally balanced the end outcome will be.
a combination of a GHRP and a GHRH analog can actually provide a stimulation of GH release that is as good as you can get with GH itself, perhaps better. At least the literature indicates this.
I don't know of anything in the literature indicating that these GH releasing drugs have diminishing effects over time.
Anthony Roberts wrote: "Unlike GH, however, some attenuation to Hexarelin occurs by week 4, and continues on up to 16 weeks of use. By separating Hexarelin cycles by 4 week off periods, this attenuation can be totally reset, (9) and the next cycle of Hexarelin will produce the same level of results as the first cycle." from:
Invalid Link Removed
It does not mater what the intent was when first creating a drug. Guys take AIs, SERMs and HCG which were not created as products for guys.
Binding proteins extend the serum half life, but probably do not increase the receptor delivery. Lr3 will find more receptors. If too many receptors are affected, change the dose. Actually, a short half life in serum can be a non-issue if the drug has docked in receptors... then the cellular activity will take place.
Long term use will shut down ones own GH&IGF-1 production, but GH replacement would do the same. If one really needs GH replacement, use of lr3-IGF-1 might be a reasonable affordable alternative. 10mcg is thought to be as effective as 1 iu of HG.
I don't know what delivery to the cells in a regulated fashion means. Receptors are binary, either activated or not. Once a receptor is activated, the drug cannot dock there twice. The receptors will be re-expressed later.
Do you see that long term use of lr3 IGF-1 would present more issues than GH replacement if comparing doses that have the same IGF-1 receptor activation effects [assuming that one knew the dosage equivalents]?
With those seeking a cost effective alternative to GH, stimulation of the pituitary to release more HG might not be viable for those who have pituitary glands that are aged or damaged.
Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide- 6 (GHRP-6) can cause intense hunger, and resultant weight gain. Many wanting GH replacement or an alternative are wanting to loose weight, not gain. It can also drive down blood sugars, a dangerous mix for a diabetic.
I tried 1000mcg; 50 days of lr3 IGF-1 40mcg EOD (thought to be equal to 2iu of HG per day). I felt better, but the effects were not huge, subtle would be a good description. I felt a bit tired afterwards in comparison. Some of that would be suppression of endogenous GH release which would be time limited. If I do this again, I might feel "that's what I felt like before". But such judgements can be difficult and sometimes things are never clear cut. I have no GH experience to compare to. I have been trying to learn about these things. It is easy to think that these things are all new, but they are all in "Growing Young with HGH", Klatz 1997. But that book does not get into details or usage for these alternatives.
