Hey guys, I've been lurking on this topic for a while and I need some opinions. I'm looking to induce muscle hyperplasia and transform my physique to a more mesomorphic state. I need to know if I would be better off achieving this with LONG IGF-1 R3 & IGF-1 Ec or HGH?
Additionally I was wondering what effect will IGF-1 have on my body's glucose levels? Will I have to monitor my sugar intake and will its use cause a negative feedback loop that will inhibit my body's natural production of insulin essentially making me a diabetic?
Yes I did read both of those threads. They are both more focused on HGH than IGF-1 and neither really say which is more advantageous. I'm just looking for some definitive opinions in the experiences of users, which of the two worked better?
HGH is better i think most would say - but IGF definitely has positive effects on muscle growth - whether that is actually hyperplasia or not i would need biopsies to tell! (of studies done on rodents, hyperplasia is definitely taking place, and i know that IGF does have a role in cell proliferation/differentation - i will paste 'some' article i had saved on my disc at the bottom of this post, as while i understand the process at this time, i would struggle to explain it in full from memory!
Anyway - GH increases IGF too and is supposedly a large factor in GH's anabolism. I am sure there are other factors at play there too. Plus GH does so much more.. increases lipolysis, increases collagen synthesis..
I use peptides - not due to price really, as although they are cheaper, GH isn't too expensive either. I use them because they suit my goals plenty for the time being (i would use Gh if i could afford to run it as frequently as i can afford to run IGF). As i near bodybuilding competitively i will begin to use GH more. That is not to say i believe it should be reserved for competitive BB's - far from it (IMO less so than AAS would/should/could be), just that is how i choose to do things.
I do believe that IGF does have some insulin like activity (surprised?!) when it comes to blood glucose - although the details i am not 'up' on. All i know is that at 20mcg a day it has no noticeable effect WRT hypoglycaemia symptoms. When i once shot 100mcg - i still noticed nothing in the way of hypo like symptoms either. I am aware that some people have claimed to have gone hypo from a shot of IGF - i suspect they may have been low carb dieters, due to my experiences.
EDIT: Funnily enough - today is a day off from the gym (so far at least!) and i just shot my 20mcg of IGF-1 LR3 IM Bilaterally as per usual. However i did it soon after a trip to my Town so i had a fairly empty stomach. I shot and continued about some things i was messing with - then as i sat down to eat, maybe 10-20mins later i realsied i was shaking and felt an ever so slight but noticeable (to me) hypo feeling. So there you go, it does seem to do it enough to notice and i would imagine a 100mcg shot on an empty stomach would be more severe.
The thing with me is i am or was a natural Ectomorph, so i generally have carbs in me 24/7!!
If you go to mesomorphisis website, there is an article by "anthony roberts" regarding IGF-1 usage and stacking options. You need to time your shots well to maximise results from IGF-1 (and its isoforms).
HGH will stimulate IGF-1 release from the liver. This endogenous IGF-1 is different from the IGF-1 LR3 variant, and exert slightly different effect. Many people have also claimed tendon healing properties from IGF-1 LR3 usage, but I can not find any scientific studies on that subjects yet.
As for IGF-1 Ec, it does not have an immediate myogenic (hypertrophy) effect. And theoretically any IGF-1 Ec injected will not penetrate cell memberane. So that's why some people say it is useless and only uses the PEGylated version. I haven't used any IGF-1 Ec variants so I can't comment on its effectiveness. IMO it is an nice addition to HGH / IGF-1 LR3, but will not yield immediate effect (like 1/4 inch on your arms) in the short term. But it does have one major advantage, it doens't blow up your intestines like regular IGF/HGH. THe use of this variant is still in the experimental stage. SO you just have to find out yourself.
There is also the choice between human grade vs. generic "chemical grade". This would affect the decision by a great deal. If you use media grade IGF-1 variants, it is very cheap and effective. Generic HGH is not too bad either. But Human grade stuff cost a bit of money. Increlex is not avaliable on the black market in my country. So the best I can do is original GroPep receptor grade IGF-1 LR3, and various European HGH. I can't afford to run them months on end.
A lot of information exist regarding the recreational use of HGH/peptides, but a lot of misinformation too. A lot of trial and error, and still not perfected. The real professionals is not going to tell us (various state run sports medicine research facilities). I would say, just save up some money and do it. Real scientists test the shit on themselves and other human sujects, before they even apply for clinical trial.
I would recommend a 4 week IGF-1 LR3 cycle, 20-30mcg ED for first 2 weeks, and 50-60 mcg EOD to E3D for the last 2 weeks, all PWO. Two dosing protocols to compare. Then after a couple of weeks break , you can do 2 weeks of IGF-1Ec 500mcg EOD, followed by 2 weeks of PEGylated version. Take a couple of weeks off again, then do a IGF-1 LR3+ Ec stack for 4 weeks, using experience gained from previous 2 cycles. The next step would be an HGH IM/IV protocol; followed by HGH+ IGF-1 stack and so on. You can used AAS in those off weeks too I think by the time you finish the whole experiment, you would have gained substantial amount of muscle. I
I've used IGF-1 lr3 PWO 40-60mcg injected bilaterally into the muscle into which I was most interested in inducing hyperplasia. And now I'm using HGH, mostly injected IV (except pre-workout, when I inject IM), 8-12iu/d, split into 3 to 5 shots, roughly E3D.
The difference between the two is absolutely astounding. I noticed basically nothing from the IGF, and absolutely incredible results from the GH (as the OP will have read, being that he has read my HGH Experiment thread).
I am not saying gains are not to be had from IGF. I am saying I sure as hell know which peptide I'll be spending the brunt of my money on in the future.
Both peptides were from the exact same supplier, too, just so that is clear. And I used both "brand name" and generic versions of this supplier's GH, both of which gave me lovely results.
The thing I guess I don't like about IGF-1 is that, as Brook mentioned above, there is just no way to measure what is happening. Whereas with GH, used as I have been, it is very immediately obviously that something powerful is going on.
As most of you know i will always go with GH over any of the newer peptides any day of the week. I may be wrong but as i have stated before i have yet to see ANYTHING from any of them that impressed me to the point that i would shoose them over GH. As for the guy up a couple of posts directing you to "anthony roberts" Geez man are you serious? That guy is the biggest ass-clown in the game. Nothing he writes is based on any factual evidence and when it is it is just cut and paste from someone elses work.
I don't understand how if MGF is supposed to act in or near the nucleus, then why a PEG form would be better. PEG will not help anything cross a membrane and into a cell; it is an extremely hydrophilic polymer. The concept that a PEG peptide would cross membranes more effectively is contrary to the well established fluid membrane hypothesis that states hydrophobic molecules more readily pass through membranes due to their similarity in composition to the membrane itself. What PEG will help with is to extend circulation time (and perhaps alter distribution, for better or worse) for an attached peptide as well as bring additional enzymatic resistance.
Given that MGF starts with the amino acid sequence YQ, I would not be surprised to see that it is a target of dipeptidyl peptidase IV and that most of any non-PEG MGF gets chopped to an inactive or much less active form within minutes of hitting the bloodstream. DPPIV is well known to cleave peptides starting with Xaa-Pro and Xaa-Ala, especially ones starting with Tyr and His. Alternatively there may be another enzyme that cleaves MGF N-terminally rendering it inactive. Also it has an Arg-Arg sequence in it as well which are known to be proteolysis hotspots.
Either way I have only found one single paper supporting the argument that MGF acts in the nucleus. This paper is in my opinion insufficient to convince me that this is how MGF works as all the paper did was take the MGF DNA sequence and attach it to GFP, overexpress it in a non-muscle cell system (poor choice) and saw that it localized to a part of the nucleus. Keep in mind that MGF carries a high net positive charge and that DNA is negatively charged, hence the two should exhibit some attraction to each other and this may be readily detected if MGF is expressed at high enough levels in a cell. So I am not convinced by this one study that this is how MGF works. (Paper is here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12095420)
Finally one recent paper published data showing MGF to induce ERK1/2 activation, which is a hallmark of GPCR signaling. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=19295919)
So while I'm not sure if anyone really even cares about this, and realize it is off topic, I keep shreaking at the sight of people making comments about MGF's intracellular actions when it really has not been proven that it indeed does have a direct target in the nucleus, or anywhere else inside or outside the cell for that matter. I keep hearing people talk about MGF but I think for now no one knows what it really does and the literature is far too thin with respect to studying MGF mechanisms of action to rely on it for definitive answers.
In the end, I'd get some of that DPPIV-resistant GHRH (the non-maleimide, shorter-acting CJC-1295) and try that out first.
Well there's no guarantee DPPIV is doing anything. I just don't think there's sufficient evidence for it solely having an intracellular role (yet). No direct molecular interaction partner has been identified.
I am pretty impressed with DAla2 DAla15 GHRH's effects. I'd like to see some head to head studies of it versus HGH, examining peak HGH levels, IGF-1 release, muscle & bone growth and other fun statistics. It is tempting to speculate that for a new user of peptides/proteins, the GHRH analog would be easier because it may be better utilized through non-IV injections whereas GH seems to be best going straight into the blood.
well no you wouldn't and neither would i...but thinking in terms of the average gym goer and what they are likely to pay the average local dealer, i have seen much worse. there are ceratin levels to the game as you well know...the guys that buy direct, the guys that buy direct and price reasonably to seasoned vets who don't care to import, and the guys who buy direct and sell to those that have never purchased GH before at a rather large markup...i was making the asumption we were talking about the third subsection of the populace.
No, you're right, mp, we probably should be referring more to that subset, and Brook and I are just being snobs
That said, anyone who is truly interested in pursuing this should also know that if they do their due diligence, they can find much better deals out there so that they don't have to go broke getting the amount they want or settle for a "fat-loss cycle" (cough) of gh. They should also know that it will take more than a week of poking around google for sites that come up when you type in "buy GH online."
From my experience, the easiest way to procure legit HGH is via anti-aging clinics. In my area, the doctors have their own supply, you don't even need to go to a pharmacy to fill out the script. I will book in for a consultation, and ask for HGH for injury/rehab straight up. Some doctors are pretty strict/or are already selling significat amout of HGH, but they will refer me to another "sport friendly" doctor anyway.
Most doctors that operate anti-aging clinics are open minded to start with, it doesn't take much persuasion. Be prepared to pay through your nose though
IMO at anti-ageing prices there are not many who can afford to run it - and of those who can - it isn't worth the money. If they still charge the same as they did - aren't you looking at at least $1000 for a kit?
A stack of GHRH and GHRP will give more than a moderate increase in GH according to the 2 studies i have read, and is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper (that said, it is cheaper for me from the same connect who sells GH at $1/iu - so it is not probably cheaper for 'category 3'..
So coming from a physique enhancement point of view, assuming that Secretagogues are not available and GH is $4/iu, i personally would simply spend the $400 on decent AAS (i wrote ASS instead then, LMAO!) as they are more than enough to get in fantastic shape alone. In 'recreational' Bodybuilding circles it is often the guys who think that in order to be in the best shape possible, they need to use what the pro's use or need to use the best and most expensive thing out there (they are the same tool's you see with 'G-Star' jeans on, pulled down to their hips showing their briefs - even thought they do not suit at all).. /rant
However from a rehabilative point of view i guess ONE kit would be reasonable, as it is gonna work - but not two. $800? fuck that.
But as i said, JMO. I am lucky enough to have a couple of decent sources and pay minimum prices across the board - maybe if that were different i would have a different opinion. But we can all say that eh?
good info here....except you forgot to mention the customized muscle shirts with the entire side cut out so they can frequently check out their hawt abs in the mirror while discussing their MMA expertise...but i digress