IGF and localized muscle growth studies

These are definitely not conclusive as they were not done on humans, but they do give a lot of credibility to the notion that IGF does give localized growth. Here they are:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/5/1716

http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/6/2461

Enjoy

Aloha Spiderman,

Very interesting articles. The study below used direct IM to attain the results listed, therefore what would be the benefit of us doing of igf?
How would the daily dose used in this study correlate to a adult male?

EOMs demonstrate significant numbers of cells expressing the IGF receptor. After the EOMs were injected with IGF-I, there were significant increases both in muscle force generation and cross-sectional area at all doses tested in this study. Doses of 10 and 25 µg IGF-I were most effective.

[size=-2]CONCLUSIONS[/size][size=-1].[/size] Direct muscular injection of IGF-I effectively increases EOM force generation without the potential biomechanical hazards of surgery such as permanently altered muscle length or insertional position on the globe.


Mahalo nui loa,
Viking

Viking1 said:

The study below used direct IM to attain the results listed, therefore what would be the benefit of us doing of igf?
How would the daily dose used in this study correlate to a adult male?

EOMs demonstrate significant numbers of cells expressing the IGF receptor. After the EOMs were injected with IGF-I, there were significant increases both in muscle force generation and cross-sectional area at all doses tested in this study. Doses of 10 and 25 µg IGF-I were most effective.

[size=-2]CONCLUSIONS[/size][size=-1].[/size] Direct muscular injection of IGF-I effectively increases EOM force generation without the potential biomechanical hazards of surgery such as permanently altered muscle length or insertional position on the globe.


Mahalo nui loa,
Viking

Click to expand...

Q1 --> This would all depend on how you apply your IGF. While I do not advocate the IM use of IGF this was the way the study was set up and there were definite benefits to it. The study was done using the Superior Rectus muscle of the eye and (EOM) which increased the amount of force generated in the muscle treated with IGF vs. the contralateral EOM. It also increased the cross-sectional area of the treated muscle which indicates not only a localized increase in muscle force, but a localized increase in muscle size (i.e. muscle cross-sectional area) vs. the contralateral EOM.

Q2 --> I don't know exactly how the dose used would correlate to an adult male. I'm not trying to find the best dose of IGF to use to get great results...that would needs it's own study using an average adult male and may other factors, which I don't see being done any time soon...just trying to show that with IM treatment of IGF there are site specific effects.

Interesting, but do these studies apply to the lr3 version as well? I was under the impression thru Marble and others that lr3 did not have the localized affect of regular IGF-1.

I believe lr3 does have the localized effect...the difference between IGF-lr3 and IGF-1 is that IGF-1 is taken up very quickly by IGFBPs (IGF binding proteins). The common theory is that IGF-1 binds only to the muscle cells @ the site injected and not anywhere else, but this is not true. It binds to the site (giving site specific effects) and the rest of it gets taken up by the IGFBPs. With IGF-lr3 you have the same binding effects @ the site, but the lr3 version is not taken up by any IGFBPs. This means if you inject to much of it (an amount that can't be taken up by the muscle cells) it will make it's way out into the body, specifically in the intestines. There are more receptors for IGF here than anywhere else in your body which is what gives the gut growth @ higher doses.

While it is true that IGF-lr3 does have a longer half life than IGF-1 this does not mean that it doesn't have the same site specific effects. When either IGF-lr3 or IGF-1 bind to muscle cell receptors a cellular response is initiated that takes about 72 hours to complete and THIS is what we are interested in.

Thanks for the response. With that logic in mind, do you believe that ED dosing of the average 40-80 mcgs is not a good idea for those that want to avoid negative feedback, as well as the potential for spillover into the intestinal tract? I've read about EOD and 3x weekly dosing, but would like some opinions as to weather these protocols are effective, or simply a waste of time. In other words, are gains dependent on maintaining a steady elevated level of lr3 (as with AAS) via daily dosing; thus, making negative feedback and spillover a necessary evil during lr3 experimentation? All responses appreciated.

I personally am going to run it both EOD and 3x weekly within the next 12 weeks to see which works better for me, but yes I believe these two options offer a better way to avoid negative feedback (theoretically) as I haven't tested any of this out on myself yet...just been reading a lot on to to make sure I do it right. I also believe that you don't need to keep steady blood levels of IGF-lr3 because any IGF in your blood levels means it did not get taken up by the muscle cells and it will end up going elsewhere in your body (could be good if it goes to other muscle cells, but it is very likely that some will go to you intestines) However, that is not to say that taking 40-80 mcgs/day will give you negative feedback as every person is different, you need to experiment and see what works for you personally, but it's best to experiment after you have the knowledge to understand what is going on inside your body, which it looks like you have.

bump

i have found that post workout worked well for muscle growth and everyday worked well for both growth and fat loss

bump

I can attest to the fact that it does indeed give you localized muscle growth. If you look at my pics in the Members section, you can see how it helped my quads and arms when I applied it to them.