My take on IGF-1

Grunt76 said:
I
Hm, you state that you do not know for sure and then that your way is better. Sounds like you are hyping yourself bro. I know for sure and my way is better, so that's that..
Click to expand...

hyping myself?

did you even understand what i said?

by "my way" i mean the scientific method. the method that looks at facts objectively and carefully and makes conclusions based upon rigid and controlled parameters. I fully believe that in the long run you will be better off using this method. The medical community and pharmaceutical community use this method (generally speaking) and it has served us pretty well.
 
jonesboy said:
This is what i know. i took igf for two months my calves grew more in that period than the previous 4 months. i stopped igf for almost two months and my calves remained the same size.
When you stop you lose the pump but site specific growth does work. fatloss from igf is real.
as far as science is concerned let them play catchup.. igf works just like grunt says it does...
Click to expand...

were you injecting directly into your calves?

if you were, have you ever tried injecting placebo (saline or water) into your calves for comparison purposes?

did you know that continued trauma from chronic injections in one area like that can lead to swelling and also the accretion of fibrotic adhesive tissue? this is not muscle growth but it can easily increase the girth of the area
 
Grunt76 said:
IGF-1 is the one growth factor known to trigger hyperplasia. So... Between these two known facts and anecdotal evidence as reported by many such as jonesboy, it takes a very hard-headed skeptic to state that the evidence is unconvincing...
Click to expand...

IGF-1 is also a necessary factor in the hypertrophy response

so exactly how are you able to tell that any increases are due to hyperplasia and not hypetrophy?

hypertrophy = increase in size of muscle cells

hyperplasia = increase in quantity of muscle cells
 
jenab123 said:
Thanks for the paper. Of course, the real standard of proof is to give it to a stray cat and see if it gets hyooge.

[to those of you that weren't around in the 90's, Andro Cat was the test subject.]
Click to expand...


andro cat did not get huge but she did mount a male after i sprinkled 4-ad on her food for a couple of weeks
 
Patrick Arnold said:
IGF-1 is also a necessary factor in the hypertrophy response

so exactly how are you able to tell that any increases are due to hyperplasia and not hypetrophy?

hypertrophy = increase in size of muscle cells

hyperplasia = increase in quantity of muscle cells
Click to expand...

I never stated it was all hyperplasia. I was responding to the question about whether hyperplasia is for real or not. And we have to use "IGF-1" very loosely here, since we *NEVER* go into the detail about systemic IGF-1 (or LR3, its analogue), vs IGF-1Ea, the autocrine kind although we now mostly distinguish IGF-1Ec from the others now, except when it is generally stated "GH increases IGF-1". Bottom line, we are NOT going into every minute detail, which is UTTERLY besides the point for APPLIED BODYBUILDING.

See, what we are doing here is using LR3 to make our muscles as big as possible over time. Whichever way achieves that, wins. No one on here should care that there is a "truer" scientific approach to the problem, since that is not what we are about or after.
 
hello to you all!

i am new here and have some questions belonging igf and hgh. in german boards the knowledge is really little....

well, i am a road cyclist who has several aims by taking hgh and igf:

- faster recovery
- fat / weight loss
- more muscle capilarisation
- epo booster / holding the hct high

but i don´t really know what protocol will work for me.

igf i wanted to take 50mcg immediatly after hard training workouts and races, maximum 4times a week.

is this ok or should i use it daily? i sit every day on my bike.

the ohter question: how should i add the hgh?
ed, eod, only with igf?

i absolutly have to avoid swelling, bloating, muscle pumps or how you do call it.

some say water won´t be a problem when hgh using eod.

i thank you all right now for your help. i am so happy to have found this board :) (sorry for my bad english)
 
Grunt76 said:
Yep, I utterly agree.


Uh. Well. You state 10% and 25% and I state that the proper concentration for reconstitution is 0.6%. What is it that you don't understand?
Click to expand...

I am having a problem with this statment (above) ... knowing that if you mix IGF1 with Bacteriostatic water it starts to degrade. After a few days it will lose a huge amount of effectiveness. The reason has to do with pH levels. IGF1 when dissolved in a solution has to be at a pH of 5.5 IIRC. BW is close to 7, it's too high. Acetic Acid however has near perfect pH level for IGF1. Many people find that injecting Acetic Acid is painful though and so when they load IGF1 (mixed with Acetic Acid) into a syringe they also draw some BW too. This is fine since the IGF1 won't have much of a chance to degrade; it can last hours with BW without degrading, just not days.

My question, how do you get 0.6% from a 10% solution (W/V) ... 0.6% is such a ridiculous amount of liquid, how do you entend me to get 500mcg/ml or 250mcg/ml, I'll have to add some BW to get to that concentration. And, we all now how BW will elavate the pH of the solution and ifg-1 will start to degrade in those conditions.

So if you could clearly explain step by step how you do it I'd appreciate it. From 10% to 0.6% there has to be a diluting process, and other than BW I don't see how one would do it.
 
Ubiquitous said:
^^^ do you have a particular issue with using sterile water, or distilled water?
Click to expand...


Ok so I should dilute my 10% AA 17 times in distilled water, so that's 16 x 500 microliters = 8 mL distilled water, and 500 microliters AA ... And voila 0.6%. Then, use this 0.6% AA to reconstitute my igf-1, and finally add BW before pinning. Correct me if I am wrong.


Now, and that's the real problem, wouldn't distilled water elevate pH levels, knowing that distilled water has a pH-value of approximately 7 ... Is distilled water, dionized water, cause in that case it shouldn't be a problem.
 
Grunt76 said:
See, what we are doing here is using LR3 to make our muscles as big as possible over time. Whichever way achieves that, wins. No one on here should care that there is a "truer" scientific approach to the problem, since that is not what we are about or after
Click to expand...

Exellent point..........this is all about muscle growth, not the science.

He with the biggest muscles wins & if he used igf, that is enought to convience all of us followers to try it. Potential side effects be damned, we want results!
 
[/QUOTE]
Marc-Antony said:
Ok so I should dilute my 10% AA 17 times in distilled water, so that's 16 x 500 microliters = 8 mL distilled water, and 500 microliters AA ... And voila 0.6%. Then, use this 0.6% AA to reconstitute my igf-1, and finally add BW before pinning. Correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

This is perfectly correct.


Marc-Antony said:
Now, and that's the real problem, wouldn't distilled water elevate pH levels, knowing that distilled water has a pH-value of approximately 7 ... Is distilled water, dionized water, cause in that case it shouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...

Ah, here we have someone who talks of things AS IF he understood them, but really does not. The pH that you want is whatever 0.6% AA has. Acetic acid does not have its own pH. It depends on the concentration. So 10% AA has a low pH, which you do bring up by adding sterile water (pH=7), up until your AA is 0.6% at which point it has the right pH.
 
Grunt,

Don't want anyone else confused by someone who is confused themselves so lets make sure:

The Acetic Acid most research stores sell is the proper dilutent right...?
 
Marc-Antony said:
I am having a problem with this statment (above) ... knowing that if you mix IGF1 with Bacteriostatic water it starts to degrade. After a few days it will lose a huge amount of effectiveness. The reason has to do with pH levels. IGF1 when dissolved in a solution has to be at a pH of 5.5 IIRC.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of this is true at all. Can you show me any evidence that IGF-1 is unstable at neutral PH?

I know that gropep said to reconstitue in dilute acetic acid but that may have just had something to do with the fact that it was used in specific cell culture experiments. these experiments may have necessitated a certain ph

the water in your body is pretty much neutral so i think that regular neutral bacteriostatic water should be fine
 
Amazon Doll said:
Exellent point..........this is all about muscle growth, not the science.

He with the biggest muscles wins & if he used igf, that is enought to convience all of us followers to try it. Potential side effects be damned, we want results!
Click to expand...


the fact that IGF-1 has much greater selectivity for visceral organ hypertrophy than for skeletal muscle hypertrophy does not concern you at all?

i want big muscles too, but not at the expense of a balloon belly
 
Patrick Arnold said:
I don't think any of this is true at all. Can you show me any evidence that IGF-1 is unstable at neutral PH?

I know that gropep said to reconstitue in dilute acetic acid but that may have just had something to do with the fact that it was used in specific cell culture experiments. these experiments may have necessitated a certain ph

the water in your body is pretty much neutral so i think that regular neutral bacteriostatic water should be fine
Click to expand...

This post here is full of assumptions... Weeks in a vial in the fridge vs minutes in the body @ 37 degrees... Anyone see a difference?

I do, call me weird.
 
Grunt76 said:
This post here is full of assumptions... Weeks in a vial in the fridge vs minutes in the body @ 37 degrees... Anyone see a difference?

I do, call me weird.
Click to expand...

of course there is a difference and i did not make that comment to serve as such a comparison

the bottom line is, where is the evidence that it is much more stable in pH 5.5 then it is in pH 7.0?

my understanding of protein molecules is that although their 3-dimensional folding can change over the pH ranges, as long as they are not subject to extreme alkaline or acidic environments then there structure should remain intact.

It just does not make sense to me that it would spontaneously break down at neutral pH and not so much at pH 5.5. what kind of chemical reaction could possibly be taking place?

one possibility for the original suggestion by gropep is that longr3 is more soluble at pH 5.5 so when reconstituting with very small volume ratios the use of the acetic acid solution is advantageous. But since we are using relatively large excesses of water in our settings, its a moot point
 
Patrick Arnold said:
the fact that IGF-1 has much greater selectivity for visceral organ hypertrophy than for skeletal muscle hypertrophy does not concern you at all?

i want big muscles too, but not at the expense of a balloon belly
Click to expand...
That was a "tongue in cheek" statement to the fact that we in the muscle community keep hearing that this product can cause the gut to grow, but strangely we are flocking to the suppliers that sell this stuff and scanning the boards for the best way to use it!

This says something about human nature and our ability to throw caution in the wind!
 
Amazon Doll said:
That was a "tongue in cheek" statement to the fact that we in the muscle community keep hearing that this product can cause the gut to grow, but strangely we are flocking to the suppliers that sell this stuff and scanning the boards for the best way to use it!

This says something about human nature and our ability to throw caution in the wind!
Click to expand...

i should have caught the sarcasm

i did not, because sadly so many people say this kind of stuff on some of these boards and actually MEAN it
 
Patrick Arnold said:
of course there is a difference and i did not make that comment to serve as such a comparison

the bottom line is, where is the evidence that it is much more stable in pH 5.5 then it is in pH 7.0?

my understanding of protein molecules is that although their 3-dimensional folding can change over the pH ranges, as long as they are not subject to extreme alkaline or acidic environments then there structure should remain intact.

It just does not make sense to me that it would spontaneously break down at neutral pH and not so much at pH 5.5. what kind of chemical reaction could possibly be taking place?

one possibility for the original suggestion by gropep is that longr3 is more soluble at pH 5.5 so when reconstituting with very small volume ratios the use of the acetic acid solution is advantageous. But since we are using relatively large excesses of water in our settings, its a moot point
Click to expand...

It probably takes weeks for IGF-1 to degrade in BW even kept in the fridge and away from shock and vibration. Hardly "spontaneous degradation".

GroPep's own research showed that right now the known way to keep IGF-1 LR3 THE MOST STABLE POSSIBLE is in 0.6% AA. Ergo, in BA or BW, or something with a different pH, it is not as stable. That is what GroPep states.
 
Grunt76 said:
It probably takes weeks for IGF-1 to degrade in BW even kept in the fridge and away from shock and vibration. Hardly "spontaneous degradation".

GroPep's own research showed that right now the known way to keep IGF-1 LR3 THE MOST STABLE POSSIBLE is in 0.6% AA. Ergo, in BA or BW, or something with a different pH, it is not as stable. That is what GroPep states.
Click to expand...

shock and vibration should not have any influence on chemical denaturing of a protein. shock and vibration do not break carbon carbon bonds, or oxidize easily oxidizable functional groups. the whole "shock and vibration" myth is nothing but broscience

Look, i am looking for a definitive statement in regards to greater stability in 0.6% AA as opposed to water. you have to understand that as an experienced chemist this does not make much sense to me. Don't take this as a personal challenge or a debate you have to win. Just tell me if you know anything GroPep has ever said that definitively and directly says that it is more stable when reconstituted in this fashion
 
Grunt76 said:
It probably takes weeks for IGF-1 to degrade in BW even kept in the fridge and away from shock and vibration. Hardly "spontaneous degradation".
Click to expand...

FYI

spontaneous degradation is a legitimate term. And it has nothing to do with rate

spontaneous degradation can mean a compound breaks down 100% in 2 seconds or 10% over 2 years.

it just means it degrades under normal storage conditions. Like CEE
 
Patrick Arnold said:
shock and vibration should not have any influence on chemical denaturing of a protein. shock and vibration do not break carbon carbon bonds, or oxidize easily oxidizable functional groups. the whole "shock and vibration" myth is nothing but broscience

Look, i am looking for a definitive statement in regards to greater stability in 0.6% AA as opposed to water. you have to understand that as an experienced chemist this does not make much sense to me. Don't take this as a personal challenge or a debate you have to win. Just tell me if you know anything GroPep has ever said that definitively and directly says that it is more stable when reconstituted in this fashion
Click to expand...

Yes, I just did say that Gropep officially states that the 0.6% AA used is for maximum stability and that is the reason why they changed from BA which was used years ago to 100mM AA now. They even published stability results going out to 2 years and in AA, the only temperature at which any significant degradation occurred after 2 years was 98 degrees F, the highest in their study.
 
Grunt76 said:
Yes, I just did say that Gropep officially states that the 0.6% AA used is for maximum stability and that is the reason why they changed from BA which was used years ago to 100mM AA now. They even published stability results going out to 2 years and in AA, the only temperature at which any significant degradation occurred after 2 years was 98 degrees F, the highest in their study.
Click to expand...


can you provide a link? did you read this first hand?
 
PA & Grunt - first off, thank you both for posting this wealth of info.

have a few questions though.
i realize that this is a newer and debatable compound with not a lot of history so we don't really know the long term impact of LR3-IGF1 use.

we do know that LR3-IGF1 goes systemic, floating around in our blood looking for available receptors. grunt - i like your approach for safer use with a lower dose and injecting immediatly post workout when muscle receptors are upregulated - in hopes that most of the compound ends up in the muscle tissue and not organs and other places we don't want growing.

i'm not a scientist but i have a hard time believing that all of the IGF will be taken in by just muscles even with a lower dose immediatly following a workout. if it's in your blood,won't it will make it's way to some of the wrong receptors leading to long-term negative sides?

i've read a lot of threads talking about how great this stuff is with little talk about the dangers and possible negative sides.

i guess what i'd like to know is what are all the known negative sides of IGF-1 use? sides i've heard of so far is downregulation of natural production of GH, and growth of gut, face, hands, feet and cancer. are there others?

also it seems debatable on the sides vs. benefit of L3-IGF1.
i hear some recommend starting with anabolic steroids while others say start with a peptide. opinions are welcome on this topic.

if i sound like an idiot - sorry. i'm just tring to learn.
 
Hank Vangut said:
i'm not a scientist but i have a hard time believing that all of the IGF will be taken in by just muscles even with a lower dose immediatly following a workout. if it's in your blood,won't it will make it's way to some of the wrong receptors leading to long-term negative sides?
Click to expand...

Not all of it, just most of it. Your body produces natural IGF-1 which has pretty much the same effects as the LR3 version anyway so it remains useful to have some degree of systemic effect, just for cellular upkeep.

I feel that the negatives are overrated when used intelligently, a lot like testosterone: it is a close derivative of something your body makes naturally, it's not going to terribly wreak all kinds of havoc on you. Like for example DNP. Or clen.
 
Hank Vangut said:
i hear some recommend starting with anabolic steroids while others say start with a peptide. opinions are welcome on this topic.
Click to expand...

For a first-timer, I think a well-designed, thoroughly researched, reasonable steroid cycle is preferable to a peptide cycle, simply because so much more is known about the steroids in terms of results, side effects, etc., and you're more likely to see significant results. But if you're an ignorant moron who plans on taking anadrol for 12 weeks, drinking every night, and not running a P.C.T., then obviously a peptide cycle will be much safer.
 
Hank Vangut said:
PA & Grunt - first off, thank you both for posting this wealth of info.

have a few questions though.
i realize that this is a newer and debatable compound with not a lot of history so we don't really know the long term impact of LR3-IGF1 use.

we do know that LR3-IGF1 goes systemic, floating around in our blood looking for available receptors. grunt - i like your approach for safer use with a lower dose and injecting immediatly post workout when muscle receptors are upregulated - in hopes that most of the compound ends up in the muscle tissue and not organs and other places we don't want growing.

i'm not a scientist but i have a hard time believing that all of the IGF will be taken in by just muscles even with a lower dose immediatly following a workout. if it's in your blood,won't it will make it's way to some of the wrong receptors leading to long-term negative sides?

i've read a lot of threads talking about how great this stuff is with little talk about the dangers and possible negative sides.

i guess what i'd like to know is what are all the known negative sides of IGF-1 use? sides i've heard of so far is downregulation of natural production of GH, and growth of gut, face, hands, feet and cancer. are there others?

also it seems debatable on the sides vs. benefit of L3-IGF1.
i hear some recommend starting with anabolic steroids while others say start with a peptide. opinions are welcome on this topic.

if i sound like an idiot - sorry. i'm just tring to learn.
Click to expand...


there are known side effects with IGF-1. IMO these are amplified with longR3 because long R3 will not bind to endogeous binding proteins. these binding proteins serve to protect certain tissues from the actions of IGF-1 while simultaneously delivering IGF-1 to the necessary target tissues (where locally acting proteases will free up the IGF-1)

longR3-IGF-1 is IGF-1 running rampant in the body. This is troublesome

I think longR3 might be useful for connective tissue injuries (direct injection) but for other uses the risk to benefit ratio is too high
 
agreed, it is amazing for joint/tendon repair.. i am living proof
 
Newbie to the site, and to these "Newer" chemical compounds, but thank you guys all for the info, please keep it up, your experiences could keep a newbie from making hasty uninformed decisions..... Love the site!!
 
Patrick Arnold said:
there are known side effects with IGF-1. IMO these are amplified with longR3 because long R3 will not bind to endogeous binding proteins. these binding proteins serve to protect certain tissues from the actions of IGF-1 while simultaneously delivering IGF-1 to the necessary target tissues (where locally acting proteases will free up the IGF-1)

longR3-IGF-1 is IGF-1 running rampant in the body. This is troublesome

I think longR3 might be useful for connective tissue injuries (direct injection) but for other uses the risk to benefit ratio is too high
Click to expand...

What kinds of sides do you consider to be "risk"?

People with existing diabetic retinopathy is one instance of a case where the risk is greater than the reward IMO, can you name others?

Patrick, I know you by reputation only - and slightly at that - and hey my first name is Patrick too - but anyway, are you personally into bodybuilding? Have you tried LR3?
 
Grunt76 said:
What kinds of sides do you consider to be "risk"?

People with existing diabetic retinopathy is one instance of a case where the risk is greater than the reward IMO, can you name others?

Patrick, I know you by reputation only - and slightly at that - and hey my first name is Patrick too - but anyway, are you personally into bodybuilding? Have you tried LR3?
Click to expand...


stimulation of cancer growth is something that is a concern with R3 possibly. in the latest muscular development i do a review of GH, IGF-1, and cancer. you will see there is some rationale to my concerns

definitely i am into bodybuilding. i don't wanna say whether i have tried LongR3 or not. Lets just say that i think it has promise for connective tissue rehabilitation
 
Marc-Antony said:
By risks you mean, internal organs growth, feet, hands, nose, ears, cranium enlargment ?? What exactly are those risks you are talking about ??
Click to expand...

i have thoughts on maximizing longr3 benefits for localized action and minimizing systemic effects

involves using a thickening agent in the injection (carrageenan solution) and the practice of occlusion (tourniquet above and below the site for a specified period of time)
 
Patrick Arnold said:
i have thoughts on maximizing longr3 benefits for localized action and minimizing systemic effects

involves using a thickening agent in the injection (carrageenan solution) and the practice of occlusion (tourniquet above and below the site for a specified period of time)
Click to expand...

Definitely interested in this.
 
Uh, carrageenean is kinda like the worst possible thing you might want to inject, after cyanide, I think...

The general idea is good, though. Kinda like an IGF-1 depot.

I think that instead of LR3 we would be better off researching just a R3 version, or DES IGF-1.
 
Grunt76 said:
Uh, carrageenean is kinda like the worst possible thing you might want to inject, after cyanide, I think...

The general idea is good, though. Kinda like an IGF-1 depot.

I think that instead of LR3 we would be better off researching just a R3 version, or DES IGF-1.
Click to expand...


i injected many cc's of a lambda-carrageenan solution into some bodyparts and was fine. its concentration dependent, must be a very dilute solution (i know what percentage but i am not telling(

Invalid Link Removed
 
Patrick Arnold said:
i injected many cc's of a lambda-carrageenan solution into some bodyparts and was fine. its concentration dependent, must be a very dilute solution (i know what percentage but i am not telling(

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Interesting, for sure I can see that with the right development you can surely make it work and not turn your blood into a solid.

Good work! :)
 
Grunt76 said:
Interesting, for sure I can see that with the right development you can surely make it work and not turn your blood into a solid.

Good work! :)
Click to expand...


thanks.

someone might be coming out with carra solution soon actually. they are looking for a facility to have it manufactured in (someone that does sterile packaging, vials etc)

at one time i was going to get involved in this but then balco related stuff made my legal situation more tenuous
 
Patrick Arnold said:
thanks.

someone might be coming out with carra solution soon actually. they are looking for a facility to have it manufactured in (someone that does sterile packaging, vials etc)

at one time i was going to get involved in this but then balco related stuff made my legal situation more tenuous
Click to expand...

Too bad for you really. Damn governments and their meddling.

There are SO MANY things that are great ideas, heck, I have like 28 of them right here for kick-ass products, but obtaining the raws and then having no lab keeps them all at the "idea" level... :(

Good luck with stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top