PDA

View Full Version : i was wrong re:mgf



Marble
04-30-2005, 12:49 AM
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.

fun28hi
04-30-2005, 01:14 AM
interesting

Marble
04-30-2005, 12:27 PM
even more interesting, administration of IGF-I or GH+IGF-I directly to these cells results in a virtual cessation of MGF production:

http://www.physoc.org/publications/proceedings/archive/images/558P/hires/C5_T0.jpg
http://www.physoc.org/publications/proceedings/archive/article.asp?ID=558PC5

eew.

but what i want to determine is whether these drugs have different profiles of effect, or whether MGF is simply a more potent analog of IGF-IEa. it's not clear to me yet.

Marble
04-30-2005, 11:46 PM
awright, i've done a ton more reading. apparently despite the very close similarity in structure and production, the inserted sequence makes mgf a separate growth factor with separate effects, rather than a more potent version of igf-iea, but it is reliant on the same igf-i receptor(igf-ir knockouts don't respond to mgf). much of the research seems to suggest mgf has greater effect on satellite cells than on differentiated muscle, but also affects myotubes(though in a different way from igf-iea). it further looks like mgf leads to rapid proliferation of myoblasts, as well as hypertrophy of muscle, but actively inhibits the formation of new myotubes, something igf-iea promotes.

sorry for not posting any studies here, but i've read at least 20 of them over the last couple days and lost where these factoids came from. let's hope i'm not sued for plagiarism. :saywhat:

resistance exercise damage to muscle leads to production of both in an interesting pattern. mgf is produced in tremendous quantities and igf-iea production actually decreases in the first 24 hours after exercise. igf-iea production then rapidly rises to well past baseline levels to peak 7(!) days later, while mgf production falls off a cliff and is basically gone by day 4.

this makes me wonder if palumboism could have a different etiology than i originally thought, based around depletion of stem cell reserves. i wonder if that's even possible? :lurk:

fun28hi
05-01-2005, 09:35 AM
wow great info keep it comming! How can you read all those studies i usally get lost.

BGMKE7
05-01-2005, 10:50 PM
well,i have done gh at 9ius/day for about 8 months before.i was in great shape and the best health of my life.i also did a ton of gear with it too.then i did igf-1Lr3 and gained like i was an anabolic monster.i have now stop taking gh all together and have taken igf about 9 times now.i have grown way more over the last year then when i was taking the gh.so i have to disagree with your statement about gh producing more muscle then igf.my gear intake is always about the same(alot).the igf made so much more of a difference that i now tell people that it is a waste of there money to even consider gh over igf.i would still do gh if it were cheaper but for what it actually does compared to igf,no way.igf wins hands down.oh,and my gh was real as i was getting it back then straight from a chinese laboratory.igf causes stremendous strength increases,crazy muscle pumps,crazy round,cartoon character like muscles,and a sense of well being.also it does something with the LH hormone as my balls always seem to get larger while on it(and im shut down badly).sorry,but what is on paper doesnt always mean it will be so in the real world.
later

fun28hi
05-02-2005, 09:27 AM
did you use the igf in local muscle groups or sub-q? I think the studies form what i read was about overall serum results body wide.

Marble
05-02-2005, 04:52 PM
your 9 iu/day gh dose is probably relatively extremely small to your igf-i dose. for anabolism that's really pretty small and it needs to be stacked with slin for good results.

lr3igf-i is considerably more effective on paper than gh, by the way. i was referring to real-world results reported by most of our users.

personally, i greatly prefer igf-i to gh. i'm just quite concerned about the possibility of depleting your satellite cell populations with too much/extended use of igf-i.