T Nation

No Evidence for IGF-1? Really?

I though IGF-1 was pretty well respected as a growth factor. Am I wrong here? Someone on a talk show remarked that the research didn’t support any evidence for improved sports performance from IGF-1. Not deer antlers, but straight IGF-1 peptides. Really? It wouldn’t surprise me to find there was limited research on the subject (specific to sports performance) but to have an MD suggest that IGF-1 wouldn’t help was out there.

The deer antler nonsense has its own problems, like even if there were substantial IGF-1 in the antler spray, its bioavailability may be zero, negating any potential benefit. The conversation never went there though. The whole conversation was almost as silly as Ray Lewis buying into halogram and light therapy.

By MD I’m assuming you mean medical doctor.

In which case I’d say his opinion doesn’t mean shit in this instance - MDs used to adamantly believe steroids didn’t build muscle tissue. Doctors are only as good as their experience extends IMO.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
By MD I’m assuming you mean medical doctor.

In which case I’d say his opinion doesn’t mean shit in this instance - MDs used to adamantly believe steroids didn’t build muscle tissue. Doctors are only as good as their experience extends IMO.[/quote]

^ This.

However, I tried IGF-LR3 from a peptide site once…didn’t notice shit. I really don’t think that most peptide sites are worth a damn.