Does BA destroy igf-1 r3?

[Thick1]

Bodybybob,

Your post is unacceptable, as you are mounting an attack on Proud13, who has stated his facts. If you want to state your facts then do so in a new thread.

Proud13, has done his research and has given us his experience in the use of the product. He also he is NOT and he keeps saying this that if diluted in BA that it is totally wrong. It will work all he is saying is that there is a better way to get the most for your money.

So take this as a warning and state your facts and not mount a flame or diss a member as you just did. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.

 

[proud13]

Cordoba,
Yes I've used it reacted with both Hcl and acetic acid but when I used the acetic acid I used slightly too much b/c I wanted a better pH but it stung alot. You can store it for as long as the manufacturer states which is 3 yrs at temps in between what they state.

bodybybob,
No more name calling and BS. Somebody recently told me about BA being used in some type of study with cytokines (possibly IGF) and blood work was done. I will have to find them and review them but if it is both positive or negative I will state the findings and a link to the study. No offense but I'm going by fairly intelligent scientists who work for Gropep who have degrees in things such as pharmacology, biology, chemistry, etc and they know how things interact. Of course sometimes something may slip through the cracks such as when GH started being used with BaW but we both have to admit it is a rarity. I'm sure other bb's have degrees but it is rare that they investigate and research things as much as certain people nor even have foundation in rather complex sciences to make educated guesses in how things may interact in the body or potentially interact. We have both behaved in rather immature manners and I'm sad we couldn't discuss this more politely or rationally but the point you make is understood...bodybuilders and many others use IGF with BA....but I can not agree with you on your statement that BaW will destroy IGF in a matter of hours without cold temps or that BA is the best way to use it.

You have to understand I'm coming from an area where I understand both the nature of these substances, the manufacturer's directions, personal usage, etc. I can also go by studies conducted by gropep and others with IGF and different reactants where degradation rates were measured.

I will end this never ending debate so that both of us may use our misdirected aggression on the weights. I will also post the results I find about the BA although I can not promise it will be very soon b/c I haven't started looking and I don't have the time this week. Take care and my apologies on my behavior and reaction. I hope you see your faults and where I may be possibly right. Take care...

 

[einstein1905]

There is a lot of misinormation and speculation being passed off here as fact. There is no published data to suggest that IGF-1 reconstituted in BA will degrade at a faster rate than in HCl or acetic acid.
I keep hearing someone referring to the "numerous" studies that show the "exponential" rate of degradation in BA.....post them or stop alluding to these mythical documents. The reason the manufacturers suggest HCl and acetic acid is because IGF-1 is primarily used in cell culture, and acetate and chloride counter ions don't have much of an impact on cellular physiology, so they don't really introduce any additional variables, whereas benzyl alcohol isn't well-suited for the sensitive assays carried out in cell culture. In vivo, it's a whole different story.

I'm all for spreading knowledge, but know your limitations, and don't pass yourself off to be something you're not.
I heard someone say that Proud was a biochemist!!?
This may be a shitty thing for me to do, and I do see him giving out some good advice, but then he takes it way too far and serves up speculation as fact, which is to no one's benefit.
No biochemist would make the following two errors:
Mentioning that IGF-1 prefers an acidic environment, and then stating that BA's pH isn't HIGH enough! Anyone that's taken even general chemistry knows that LOW pH is acidic and HIGH pH is basic.

You state the BA won't freeze...only at absolute zero!
BA freezes at around -20 degrees.

Stop claiming how "stupid" using BA is to reconstitute IGF-1. It works extremely well, and HCl does NOT work significantly better.
IGF-1 in BA has been stored for months at a time with no significantly decreased effects. If this "exponential" degradation occured, as you say, then there would not even be a remote chance of seeing effects from IGF-1 after this length of time.

I'm sure I'm coming off as a prick in this post, but it's for the greater good. it's great and encouraged to theorize and speculate off of established scientific data, but don't confuse theory with fact. I don't see how you can possibly so arduously defend what you say without providing one shred of evidence


Anyone is welcome to come over to AR and discuss (without agendas) the use of IGF-1

http://67.18.108.244//forumdisplay.php?f=75

 

[eaglewrestler27]

Well, I am completly confused now could someone please explain the best way to suspend IGF-1 for effectivness and cost. Thanks!

 

[proud13]

Einstein,
I was originally going to defend my stand but instead why not show my exactly why BA is okay to use with IGF-1R3 which is highly unstable. Any study would be great. Better yet call over to the people at the manufacturer and discuss it with them.

I'm not arguing over an opinion I feel strongly about. I obvioulsy have no agenda to sell IGF or IGF in BA. However, I find it out that the people that scream lier, witch, etc are the ones who don't want to feel like they were ripped off or they have another agenda which is to sell IGF (bought in large amounts) in BA. It is possible you are neither one but you counter my points and arguments with nothing else than things you can't back up such as "It works extremely well, and HCl does NOT work significantly better. IGF-1 in BA has been stored for months at a time with no significantly decreased effects. If this "exponential" degradation occured, as you say, then there would not even be a remote chance of seeing effects from IGF-1 after this length of time."

Show me your proof on this besides something along the lines of..."I felt it" or "I got lean" or "I put on 10lbs".

Look up the term placebo effect. Tell a person that this pill (I.E-a laxative) will relieve their headache and chances are it may. Given the fact that when people take steroids, P-H, etc they train harder and eat better then...HMMM chances are they will grow and respond better no matter the supplements work or not.

Not arguing or starting a shit throwing contest here but there is no study besides what Gropep has conducted and I'm pretty sure they ran the gamut of substances to test with the IGF and found the one that was best.

By the way if anecdoctal evidence and the strong indication that BA could harm or hamper IGF's efx isn't enough for you then by all means risk it and use it with tedious back loading, time-consuming and painful injections. Enjoy..

 

[swoleKEN]

great thread bros...BUMP

 

[eaglewrestler27]

Thanks proud13 you answered my questions. But here is one more: Is it sterile enough to buy regular distilled vinegar, then run it through a whatman filter? And is it bad for my bloodstream to have something that acidic in it? Thanks bro!

 

[einstein1905]

You've got to love the 10+LBS OF lbm and 2% reduction in bf%, right?
I have spoken with GP, and, NO, thery haven't used BA, so thanks for suggesting that. You claim that BA injections are painful.....is that relative to 10mM HCl or 100mM acetic acid? because they are both just as painful BTW.....I shouldn't have to tell you though, because I'm sure you've compared the three yourself too, right?
If either of the two "recommended" solvents were significantly superior to BA, it would be very obvious over the course of a cycle....it's not. Again, the reason HCl and acetic acid are "recommended" is because LR3 is designed for in vitro experiments, and BA would introduce a substance that is not common in cell culture media, whereas, Cl- and acetate ions are common and won't skew an experiment. there is no proof that either are "better" for maintaining activity than BA.....all you've ever based things on is the manufacturer's recommended reconstitution instructions, and yoy took that out of context and tried to extrapolate that too in vivo applications.......a flaw.


There is a paper out there (that I had emailed you before) that shows BA plus mannitol to be an ideal solvent for maintaining tertiary structure of IGF-1 and therefore its activity.


real world application has proven the test of time.....BA is an excellent solvent, and the exaggerated instability of LR3 in BA was and is nothing more than hype. there's a reason that people keep shelling out money fo rit even though it's sold reconstituted in BA. BTW, I get mine lyophilized....however, I still reconstitute in BA over HCl, as i'd much prefer the stability that BA has to offer.


You tell me to prove that BA works well??? It's the in vivo standard....you prove that it doesn't work well. Don't give me the "GP's recommended use" crap, because that was addressed....that's for the purposes of in vitro work.....they won't even discuss using LR3 in vivo, because it's too highly immunogenic in most test animal species (rabbits, mice and rats, etc).....however, humans do not react to LR3 as do the aforementioned animals

Einstein,
I was originally going to defend my stand but instead why not show my exactly why BA is okay to use with IGF-1R3 which is highly unstable. Any study would be great. Better yet call over to the people at the manufacturer and discuss it with them.

I'm not arguing over an opinion I feel strongly about. I obvioulsy have no agenda to sell IGF or IGF in BA. However, I find it out that the people that scream lier, witch, etc are the ones who don't want to feel like they were ripped off or they have another agenda which is to sell IGF (bought in large amounts) in BA. It is possible you are neither one but you counter my points and arguments with nothing else than things you can't back up such as "It works extremely well, and HCl does NOT work significantly better. IGF-1 in BA has been stored for months at a time with no significantly decreased effects. If this "exponential" degradation occured, as you say, then there would not even be a remote chance of seeing effects from IGF-1 after this length of time."

Show me your proof on this besides something along the lines of..."I felt it" or "I got lean" or "I put on 10lbs".

Look up the term placebo effect. Tell a person that this pill (I.E-a laxative) will relieve their headache and chances are it may. Given the fact that when people take steroids, P-H, etc they train harder and eat better then...HMMM chances are they will grow and respond better no matter the supplements work or not.

Not arguing or starting a shit throwing contest here but there is no study besides what Gropep has conducted and I'm pretty sure they ran the gamut of substances to test with the IGF and found the one that was best.

By the way if anecdoctal evidence and the strong indication that BA could harm or hamper IGF's efx isn't enough for you then by all means risk it and use it with tedious back loading, time-consuming and painful injections. Enjoy..

 

[einstein1905]

BTW, if you want to read about people that have actually used LR3 numerous times, the sites in my sig will give you real accounts of people that have used LR3 and the results they saw with it

 

[eaglewrestler27]

So I guess I should go with BA, due to the stability ?

 

[proud13]

Einstein,
Resend the BA/mannitol paper. I'd like to take a look at it. Awhile back I had heard from someone I trust that there is in fact a study with IGF-1R3 and BA that showed the biological activity of the IGF but after spending about an hour going through study after study I gave up without any luck. I'll try again but yes I'm going on manufacturer's specs but spoke with the president of a distributor here in the US (one of two) and he told me that it would be ridiculous to put it with the BA but we didn't get into why since we both saw it as silly. If you'd like his name and number and I can give that to you in a PM.

I'll be the first to eat crow on this one but until the proof is in I'll stick to my way and keep searching out actual research info. However, I've left these kinds of posts alone for a long time now and have given up arguing on the topic which seems to have no right (factual) answer to which is better, safer etc.

As for BA with IGF no I've never used it b/c of my stance. However I know it stings in things like oils at only 2%. I used it with the Hcl and had some stinging but not severe although when done sub-Q it sometimes left a small (wasp-sting) like mound under the skin. That wasn't a bother though.