Receptor Grade Igf

[role model]

Can someone explain the difference between RECEPTOR GRADE IGF AND MEDIA GRADE? AND IS THERE A DOSAGE DIFFERENCE?

[macdaddy69]

Purity no dosage difference

[novicebb]

So receptor grad is better then media grade

[MaxRep]

Originally Posted by macdaddy69

Purity no dosage difference

There should be a dosage difference with the purity difference. There's a good case via science being made for the higher grade (receptor) eliciting the same effect at 1/2 to 1/4 the dosage currently being used with media grade.

However, this is still be investigated. I personally am in contact with a Ph.D. research scientist, who's a professor at a major university and who's specialty is muscle hypertrophy... I've just today contacted him on this very subject. I'll see what he has to say and let you guys know.

Best regards,
MaxRep

[role model]

Originally Posted by MaxRep

There should be a dosage difference with the purity difference. There's a good case via science being made for the higher grade (receptor) eliciting the same effect at 1/2 to 1/4 the dosage currently being used with media grade.

However, this is still be investigated. I personally am in contact with a Ph.D. research scientist, who's a professor at a major university and who's specialty is muscle hypertrophy... I've just today contacted him on this very subject. I'll see what he has to say and let you guys know.
Best regards,
MaxRep

Cool because I was going to try some Receptor Grade Igf off cycle. I was told the results were considerably better. But wasn't sure about dosage.

[role model]

This is what I got so far. Much of the newer research shows that EOD and even E3D igf-1 treatment is better than ED because ED downregulates the receptors too quick. It takes some time for receptors to be able to come back in full after a megadose of even 20mcg of IGF-1. So you may want to think about switching to EOD lifting and IGF-1 immediately postworkout every workout, or 2on/1off and pin the lagging muscle E3D. These dosing patterns won't give you pounds of immediate muscle, but they will give you hyperplasia, which means continued growth at very decent rates, and the ability to continue treatment for a long while until response diminishes.

[MaxRep]

Originally Posted by role model

This is what I got so far. Much of the newer research shows that EOD and even E3D igf-1 treatment is better than ED because ED downregulates the receptors too quick. It takes some time for receptors to be able to come back in full after a megadose of even 20mcg of IGF-1. So you may want to think about switching to EOD lifting and IGF-1 immediately postworkout every workout, or 2on/1off and pin the lagging muscle E3D. These dosing patterns won't give you pounds of immediate muscle, but they will give you hyperplasia, which means continued growth at very decent rates, and the ability to continue treatment for a long while until response diminishes.

OK my friend, I don't know where you're getting your info but you're being fed a bunch of BS.

First, there is no "newer research". LR3IGF-1 is not approved for human use. There is no research facility in the US, or world that I'm aware of and I do have the inside track on this, which is doing any research, at any level, on humans.

Second, All this talk about receptors being down-regulated and the time frame in which they're being down-regulated and the dosage at which down-regulation occurs... is VOO-DOO FANTASY SCIENCE. It's smoke, you reach out to touch it and find real quickly it's not real.

Third, hyperplasia... bullshit! There is not a spec of proof for hyperplasia to be occurring through the use of LR3IGF-1.

Fourth, pin the lagging muscle group? Again, Bullshit! There is not a spec of science to support site specific benefits over and above generalized, body wide benefits. Anecdotally, again, users who report site specific benefits, if they are being honest and don't have an agenda, will admit those supposed site specific benefits disappear over a little time. Which means the supposed site specific benefits are simply a reaction to the shot and irritation caused by the LR3IGF-1 and BA or AA... which causes a slight swelling and tightness to the muscle which only a moron could attribute to some enhanced, site specific muscle growth.

Invite the moron spreading this bullcrap onto this board and I will be more than happy to debate him and debunk all this nonsense.

Best regards,
MaxRep

[role model]

Max It was actually on a stickey at http://anabolicminds.com/forum/igf-1-gh/

[MaxRep]

OK. It sounds a lot like some of the BS a guy named "Grunt" espouses, which I've seen on OLM and some other boards. I've already gotten into it pretty good with Grunt on a board that specializes in just IGF-1. It may perhaps be more than a coincidence that after our last debate he never showed up to post again.

The point is to do your own research and apply a healthy dose of common sense. Ask questions... like where are these dosage numbers and X's per week coming from? Where's this info on receptor down-regulation coming from...? The answer with most of these guys is the answer's being pulled out of the thin air, because rather than say they don't know, they're giving some BS answer.

Best regards,
MaxRep

[role model]

Originally Posted by MaxRep

There should be a dosage difference with the purity difference. There's a good case via science being made for the higher grade (receptor) eliciting the same effect at 1/2 to 1/4 the dosage currently being used with media grade.

However, this is still be investigated. I personally am in contact with a Ph.D. research scientist, who's a professor at a major university and who's specialty is muscle hypertrophy... I've just today contacted him on this very subject. I'll see what he has to say and let you guys know.

Best regards,
MaxRep

I plan on reading a lot this weekend but if you get the info you stated above please post it.
Thanks
Role

[srch4info]

Very interesting thread and great to have MaxRep's input...

[role model]

Originally Posted by srch4info

Very interesting thread and great to have MaxRep's input...

LOL, Love your avatar, is it called "The Smart Monkey?"

[srch4info]

Actually I don't know but I laughed my ass off when I first saw it and I just had to have it... reminds me of my "geeky" side

[averageJoe]

Originally Posted by MaxRep

There should be a dosage difference with the purity difference. There's a good case via science being made for the higher grade (receptor) eliciting the same effect at 1/2 to 1/4 the dosage currently being used with media grade.

However, this is still be investigated. I personally am in contact with a Ph.D. research scientist, who's a professor at a major university and who's specialty is muscle hypertrophy... I've just today contacted him on this very subject. I'll see what he has to say and let you guys know.

Best regards,
MaxRep

You are truly very well "networked" my friend!

lol!

[role model]

From http://bodybuildingclassifieds.com/f...hread.php?t=15

IGF Usage should not exceed 4-5 weeks, and an OFF period should be about the same. Daily dosages work best (split up into 2 seems to make little difference in the Long R3 version) Most people see results at about 40mcg/day, some use as low as 30mcg/day, and some folks even use 80mcg. I SUGGEST to ALL first time users no matter what level, to start at about 40mcg/day.
Some inject immediately before training, while others choose to do 2 shots spread throughout the day... THEY BOTH WORK WELL. Try both; see which method makes your muscles pop out of your skin. Add plenty of protein, and don’t shy away from carbs immediately after training. I used up to 100g of carbs after training, and my body fat went down, all without cardio. IGF prevents insulin from transporting glucose across cell membranes. As a result the cells have to switch to burning off fat as a source of energy.

IGF also mimic's insulin in the human body. It makes muscles more sensitive to insulin's effects, so if you are a person that currently uses insulin you can lower your dosage by a decent margin to achieve the same effects, and as mentioned IGF will keep the insulin from making you fat.

[role model]

Here is an article-testimony written by a igf user-experimenter.

When I first started taking Long R3 IGF-1, I used 50mcg every other day. Amazingly, within days, I started noticing some effects in my body. I felt super hungry all of the time and just felt “anabolic”. I can’t describe this feeling except to say that it was very similar to being on anabolic steroids (I wasn’t on at the time). Within one month, I gained almost 17 pounds of fairly lean mass! After the first month, something happened though and I noticed that it didn’t seem to be working that well. I upped the dosage several times over the next month to keep up the desired effects. On the third month, I was using several hundred micrograms per day but wasn’t noticing any further gains. All in all, I gained about 20 pounds of pretty solid mass!

Please notice that almost all of my gains were within the first month of taking the Long R3 IGF-1. After this first month, my gains slowed down considerably and eventually stopped altogether even though I was taking high dosages. Why did this happen?

From all of my research, I suppose one of two things might have happened to prevent me from making further gains. What I truly suspect is that the Long R3 IGF-1 downregulated the amount of binding proteins being produced by my body (research confirms this). When I first started to inject the IGF-1, I was supplementing my own body’s IGF-1. I not only had my own IGF-1 working throughout the day but I had the potent surges of Long R3 IGF-1 that I would inject. Over time though, the binding proteins were downregulated. Of course my body continued to produce some (albeit less) IGF-1, however, because there were very little or no binding proteins it was quickly degraded. From what I can tell, I was in a state where 95% of the day my body did not have the benefits of IGF-1. Basically, it got what it got when I injected the Long R3 version.

The other possibility is that I built up antibodies to the Long R3 IGF-1 which basically sought out and destroyed what I injected. Although possible, I don’t believe this actually happened because it is not supported by research. I have seen no evidence which suggests that Long R3 IGF-1 causes antibody production.

To fix the above problem, one would have to cycle the Long R3 IGF-1. The best thing would probably be to take it every other month. This would allow your own body’s IGF-1 and binding proteins to return to normal.

Overall, I had a good experience with Long R3 IGF-1. The results were different than with steroids. I have noticed that steroids cause preferential growth of certain muscles, especially those that are stressed (as in lifting). The IGF-1 though seemed to cause my entire body to get a little thicker. I guess IGF-1 is less compensatory in nature and exerts a more whole-body anabolicity.

Would I recommend IGF-1? To the right person who is very careful and knows what he’s doing and has a good background in the sciences and has access to a good lab, YES! However, you can tell that I have listed many prerequisites to using it. For the average Joe, I believe is is just too complicated to be safe.

[MaxRep]

Originally Posted by role model

I plan on reading a lot this weekend but if you get the info you stated above please post it.
Thanks
Role

OK, RM, here's what I can pass on regarding my scientist friend and his take on receptor grade versus media grade...

A little overall background:

I happen to count among my close friends a top research scientist. A brief background on him... This is a very bright guy who received his Bachelor's in Biology, his Master's in Physical Ed/Exercise Physiology and his PhD in Exercise Physiology. All 3 degrees from respected universities in CA and OR. He's currently an Assoc. Professor at a major University in the midwest and just does research and runs experiments/studies. He has a fair number of published studies and articles and is currently working on studies involving muscle hypertrophy and circadian rhythms.

His entire life and research is devoted to reasons behind and methods of skeletal muscle hypertrophy. He's a former competitive Natural BB (while he was a student) and placed as high as 3rd in his class at the Natural Cal back in the early '90's.

Most of his research is regarding skeletal muscle cell hypertrophy through training, and researching the natural molecular processes of muscular hypertrophy.

Although he primarily does mechanical overload type research and not pharmaceutical type research, he is of course reasonably well versed in what's going on in the pharmaceutical areas of muscle hypertrophy.

When I asked him what he thought about the difference in purity of LR3IGf-1... 85% VS 95%... he stressed that although he has not done any studies on the 2 products of different purity levels... in general research, differences of 10% purity would almost certainly not result in gains 3-4 times greater.

When I advised him the cost is roughly 3x as much for the 95% VS the 85%, and it was being justified due to gains being 3x as much or the same gains for 1/3 the dose... he said that type of gain differential due to the purity difference is extremely unlikely to occur.

He did say that scientific studies generally require the highest possible purity levels of whatever substance but that's just to ensure the most accurate, unbiased and reliable results. He felt differences in real world results between the two products would be fairly small.

So, what I am recommending to any "legitimate" source of LR3IGF-1 is they somehow contact a real world research Dr. who specializes in pharmaceutical aids to skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Talk with him about the differences in real world gains due to a 10% difference in purity levels. Because if a lot of money is spent on bringing in the receptor grade and folks don't notice much difference between it and the media grade, it could be a $costly experience and/or damaging to the sources reputation.

Kind of like how the folks who brought out the original, costly MGF, with its 20 minute half-life... saw their reputations severely damaged when it proved totally ineffective in the real world.

On another note, my research Dr. friend says there's no way injected lr3IGf-1 will have any localized effect, over and above the effects it exerts throughout the entire body. He confirmed what I've always maintained from my own amateur research... which is that IGf-1 goes systemic very quickly and the concept of it first saturating local receptors is scientifically invalid...

Best regards,
MaxRep

[role model]

REPORT

Been off aas now for over 3 weeks. Done with pct and been on IGF for 8 days . Igf is amazing so far, MONSTER pumps, strength increases all week.
Max rep is correct, IGF not doing much for lagging body parts when injected directly into that muscle. I've only lost 5 lbs in 3 weeks after coming off my cycle which I put on 20 lbs.
I have been hitting 60mcg's of IGF ED. Have added a rep or two to every exercise from when I was on AAS, seems like every time I go in the gym I am stronger than the last workout of the same type.

[litterbox]

Originally Posted by role model

REPORT
seems like every time I go in the gym I am stronger than the last workout of the same type.

That's exactly how I felt on my last PCT which included IGF.