another question on igf-1lr3

[flexshack]

i am confused about something. i have read that igf-1lr3 does not raise or alter at all our natural igf-1 levels. if this is so, then does this mean that even when taking igf, we still will produce our own hgh which is then converted into igf-1. or does this process stop? if it stops, then where is the negative feedback coming from? einstein??

[einstein1905]

i am confused about something. i have read that igf-1lr3 does not raise or alter at all our natural igf-1 levels. if this is so, then does this mean that even when taking igf, we still will produce our own hgh which is then converted into igf-1. or does this process stop? if it stops, then where is the negative feedback coming from? einstein??

I've seen somewhere too, I don't remember where, that LR3 doesn't affect endogenous GH, and therefore IGF-1, levels. I simply don't agree with/believe that. I'd need to see some really clear evidence of this being the case.....not just someone's speculation.
In this thread I explained why I think what I think.
I'd be interested to see what and where you heard that LR3 won't affect endogenous IGF-1.

[flexshack]

I've seen somewhere too, I don't remember where, that LR3 doesn't affect endogenous GH, and therefore IGF-1, levels. I simply don't agree with/believe that. I'd need to see some really clear evidence of this being the case.....not just someone's speculation.
In this thread I explained why I think what I think.
I'd be interested to see what and where you heard that LR3 won't affect endogenous IGF-1.

i heard it from you, lol. i started that thread that you gave a link to.
and yeah, i too find it hard to believe especially b/c of the overall muscle growth that occurs from its usage. if this speculation was true, how could all the muscle groups in one's body grow if one was only injecting im? i also believe that im injections allow more of the igf-1 to stay local, whereas subq allows all of it to flow throughout the body.

[einstein1905]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My contention is that while using IGF-1, you'll be limiting your own endogenous GH/IGF-1 production, but this will cease with in hours (maybe 6-24) of ceasing LR3. So, on the short term, it does affect endogenous production.
Despite a paper claiming/theorizing that IGF-1 doesn't leave the muscle in which it is produced (in a study where IGF-1 was overexpressed in rat muscles), I'm now pretty convinced that it does leave the site, but that IM site injections are still best to take advantage of receptor upregulation.

[flexshack]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My contention is that while using IGF-1, you'll be limiting your own endogenous GH/IGF-1 production, but this will cease with in hours (maybe 6-24) of ceasing LR3. So, on the short term, it does affect endogenous production.
Despite a paper claiming/theorizing that IGF-1 doesn't leave the muscle in which it is produced (in a study where IGF-1 was overexpressed in rat muscles), I'm now pretty convinced that it does leave the site, but that IM site injections are still best to take advantage of receptor upregulation.

i understand now. thanks.