was i wrong re:mgf?
mgf is produced through a genetic splice of the igf-i gene, not by splicing igf-i itself enzymatically. this is certainly why gh is so effective at building muscle mass. mgf is not a systemically circulating hormone but is instead locally(autocrine/paracrine) expressed, produced, and utilized.
this suggests administration of systemic igf-i(or lr3igf-i, which mimics this igf-iea) will not do nearly as much for muscle growth as systemic administration of large amounts of gh, or direct & constant local administration of mgf, which is not really feasible for most athletes and won't necessarily lead to gains anyway, depending on uptake. viral vectors containing dna leading to overexpression of mgf would be extremely potent BB drugs.
however... administration of systemic igf-i to laron's dwarfism patients results in serious hypertrophy. these individuals have tons of circulating GH but basically no circulating IGF-I due to gh receptor defects.
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/9/3036
why would they see so much benefit from igf-i supplementation? does it just increase nutrient uptake to muscle? or is it more profound than that?
http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/547/1/2
i'm trying to find out whether the igf-i viral vectors targetted the entire igf-i gene or were simple "make more igf-iea" commands right now. stay tuned.
mgf is produced through a genetic splice of the igf-i gene, not by splicing igf-i itself enzymatically. this is certainly why gh is so effective at building muscle mass. mgf is not a systemically circulating hormone but is instead locally(autocrine/paracrine) expressed, produced, and utilized.
this suggests administration of systemic igf-i(or lr3igf-i, which mimics this igf-iea) will not do nearly as much for muscle growth as systemic administration of large amounts of gh, or direct & constant local administration of mgf, which is not really feasible for most athletes and won't necessarily lead to gains anyway, depending on uptake. viral vectors containing dna leading to overexpression of mgf would be extremely potent BB drugs.
however... administration of systemic igf-i to laron's dwarfism patients results in serious hypertrophy. these individuals have tons of circulating GH but basically no circulating IGF-I due to gh receptor defects.
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/9/3036
why would they see so much benefit from igf-i supplementation? does it just increase nutrient uptake to muscle? or is it more profound than that?
http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/547/1/2
i'm trying to find out whether the igf-i viral vectors targetted the entire igf-i gene or were simple "make more igf-iea" commands right now. stay tuned.
Last edited: