Fat loss: hIGF-1hLR3IGF-1 versus hGH

[AlbaGuBrath]

Hello everyone. I am a new member here and am impressed with the number of knowledgeable athletes.

I have used regular human IGF-1 in the past, not the long R3 form. This was as part of a clinical trial for a biotech firm. My dose was about 7mg/day SQ injections that I self administered either in one dose or split up into two equally divided doses. My results, with no change in diet or exercise, seemed to lean more towards fat loss than muscle gain.

I have also used hGH in the past. It was legit NutropinAQ from Genentech. My doses ran anywhere from 5 to 20 IU a day. Yes, up to 20 IU/ day. Initially, at the lower doses I garnered great body recompisition effects. Much leaner with more muscle "volume". However, as I increased my doseage I seemed to get diminishing returns with some attenuation of effect after a while.

I am wondering, for those that have tried both hGH and lr3IGF-1, which do you feel proffered better fat loss, irrespective of muscle gain?

Also, why do many on here reccommend IM injections for IGF-1? SQ should work just fine. Am I missing something here? Thanks.

[saudades]

For lots of people, subQ can leave a painful knot that doesn't go away for weeks or even months. Research has also shown that injecting IM seems to target specific muscles more than when injecting subQ which only gives you the overall body effect.

[ton1333]

bump to TK i did igf subq one day and will never do that again....Yep just checked, it was baout 7 months ago and there is still a tiny tiny lump

[Marble]

the reason this particular igf-i causes those lumps is you're shooting essentially pure BA regardless of whether you mix it with bacteriostatic water or not because BA isn't really very soluble in water. you can emulsify things to make it a little smoother.

im igf-i will lead to higher local concentrations, absorption, and use of the compound, which is nice if you want a particular muscle group to grow. i.e., site inj's actually do work.

btw, no recreational bb will be able to afford plain igf-i, even if it's the new igf-i/igfbp-3 mix. it's just too many mcg and too expensive.

[Chaps]

What's the new one you jsut described? I read is muscular development that they are developing a drug that is just the chunk of GH that causes the insane fatburning, so that would be the only effect, can you imagine being able to run high doses of that compound!

[MdTNT]

Originally Posted by Marble

the reason this particular igf-i causes those lumps is you're shooting essentially pure BA regardless of whether you mix it with bacteriostatic water or not because BA isn't really very soluble in water. you can emulsify things to make it a little smoother.

im igf-i will lead to higher local concentrations, absorption, and use of the compound, which is nice if you want a particular muscle group to grow. i.e., site inj's actually do work.

btw, no recreational bb will be able to afford plain igf-i, even if it's the new igf-i/igfbp-3 mix. it's just too many mcg and too expensive.

bro' some one is making money and i dont imagine that only pro BB are the one spending their hard earned money on igf so iu would disagree with you on that one....just cause some one is recreatiojnal and not professional does not mean they are not willing to spend the money for products...tahts almost like saying that recreational BB'rs cant afford real gear, that they can only afford UG shit....not sensible

[mikeswift]

Bump for the fat burning and site enhancement from IGF-. I've had amazing results from IGF-1 only cycles, i shot delts and recently started shooting pecs and there were immediate site enhancement results... My last cycle I used Winny and IGF and had no joint problems like I typically have on Winny, I clearly lost body fat but yet I was up 4-6 lean pounds.

[Marble]

Originally Posted by MdTNT

bro' some one is making money and i dont imagine that only pro BB are the one spending their hard earned money on igf so iu would disagree with you on that one....just cause some one is recreatiojnal and not professional does not mean they are not willing to spend the money for products...tahts almost like saying that recreational BB'rs cant afford real gear, that they can only afford UG shit....not sensible

regular rIGF-I -- not the lr3 variant -- runs $210.00/100 mcg at retail.

daily replacement dose for laron's dwarfism patients: 100mcg/kg/day. let's assume you weigh 100 kg. you're spending $21,000/day for a replacement dose.

http://www.chemicon.com/Product/Prod...ductItem=GF006

i stand by my assertion, unless you know of some recreational bb's with $882,000 to kick around for a 6-week cycle.

[MdTNT]

Originally Posted by Marble

regular rIGF-I -- not the lr3 variant -- runs $210.00/100 mcg at retail.

daily replacement dose for laron's dwarfism patients: 100mcg/kg/day. let's assume you weigh 100 kg. you're spending $21,000/day for a replacement dose.

http://www.chemicon.com/Product/Prod...ductItem=GF006

i stand by my assertion, unless you know of some recreational bb's with $882,000 to kick around for a 6-week cycle.

Marble bro'...i guess I am still missing your point....what is commonly available to any one on retail is igf1-3...as far as any pro...well none of the pro's i speak to on any basis who do igf spend 800,000 on it so what makes them any idfferent from the recreational because tehya re dpoing the same igf that 99.99% of us are all doing....so please explain the point again. Just currious. Md

[Marble]

no prob bro. i think what's missing is that igf-1 is a completely different drug from lr3igf-1(what you call igf1-3). you aren't using igf-1. you're using the long arg(3) flavor of it which has been chemically modified with a special group attached to a special spot.

lr3igf-1 has been changed to bind poorly to proteins that inactivate it so much less goes much further. you would have to use WAY more normal igf-1($800,000 worth) to get a similar effect because most of it floats around bonded to igfbp-3 in particular, just like most testosterone is bound to shbg and albumin. it also has a MUCH longer half-life(15 minutes -> 28 hours).

the distinction makes a big difference in a lot of ways for a lot of reasons. binding proteins don't just inactivate the compound, but also transport it to specific spots. this means lr3igf-1 has stronger effects in some body parts and organs and weaker effects others than igf-1.

lr3igf-1 is a different drug than igf-1, just like, say, anadrol is different from testosterone. it's a modified version with a different profile of effects. you'd have to be Extremely rich and foolish to use normal igf-1 instead.

does this help?

take care,
marble.

[mikeswift]

so then how long is our (MC's) IGF-1 active in the body for? I've been under the assumption that it was active for 8 - 12 hours

[Get_Swole]

i always heard 16 hours man but thats hear say

[mikeswift]

well that's a lot better than the 15 minutes it says in the above post... I would imagine I wouldn't be getting very good results if it's only active for 15 minutes!

[normalsucks]

I just get more confused each time I read this.

But I think what marable is saying is that we should be buying lr3igf-1 instead of igf-1. So my question is, why dosent MC sell lr3igf-1?-assuming this is valid.

[normalsucks]

does lr3igf-1= IGFR3

[bigbaldbulldog]

IGF is better for quicker results over HGH.. if fat loss is what you are looking for.

I have become a huge fan of PEG MGF over any of those compounds.. .

[kayholetrip]

IGF is better for quicker results over HGH.. if fat loss is what you are looking for.

I have become a huge fan of PEG MGF over any of those compounds.. .
__________________
Yep i agree

[tigerpower]

Originally Posted by normalsucks

I just get more confused each time I read this.

But I think what marable is saying is that we should be buying lr3igf-1 instead of igf-1. So my question is, why dosent MC sell lr3igf-1?-assuming this is valid.

All of the igf that your buying anywhere is the lr3 version including mc's. Like said before, you wouldn't even be able to afford the other kind.

[saudades]

I got far better fat loss from HGH than IGF, but I think dosages played a part in it. IGF will give good fat loss, too, but you have to increase the dosage.

[Stickler*]

i've never done igf so i guess i can't really post.. but i voted anyhow... so GH for me... btw.. one hell of a 'view count' ....

[Stickler*]

Originally Posted by kayholetrip

IGF is better for quicker results over HGH.. if fat loss is what you are looking for.

I have become a huge fan of PEG MGF over any of those compounds.. .
__________________
Yep i agree

do us ALL a favor and post a thread on your results vs' the others... i'd LOVE to hear PEG MGF results period...