IGF-1 and MGF protocol PWO

[ramacher]

What are ppl using in mcg after workouts for both IGF-1 and MGF (NOT IGF-1 LR3)?

[BeachBod909]

Sorry not to add help to your question.....but whats wrong with LR3? thats what Im taking. Im asking because I don't know not to be a smart azz. 50mcg PWO

[ramacher]

LR3 doesn't necessarily add to muscle growth, huIGF-1 does. There is a similar post where pinnacle explains why this is but using huIGF-1 and MGF is the best!

[Hazard]

My friend is using Lr3..... I've told him about it and he's going to contat the guy again to double check. Anyways..... the dosage for Igf was 100mcg's bilaterally in muscles worked. MGF i'm not sure on yet.....

~Haz~

[Ruthless1]

So lr3 u inject into the muscle you just trained?

[Ruthless1]

And also I will be starting. Mgf. Can u please tell me how exactly and when. Read up on it and some say before bed and others say right after you train I'm the parts you trained.100mcgs each part.(Left pec right pec). Is this correct. Thanks.

[Lifeguard102]

LR3 doesn't necessarily add to muscle growth, huIGF-1 does. There is a similar post where pinnacle explains why this is but using huIGF-1 and MGF is the best!

hg igf-1 is Increlex correct?
It is dosed 1,200 mcg x2-NO THAT IS NOT A TYPO.
It costs 1,000 for 40mg
It comes recon and must be used within a month.

CAN YOU IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITIES?

[ramacher]

Can you get your hands on this stuff?

[ramacher]

Can you get your hands on this stuff?

[Lifeguard102]

If I do it will be Rx from a doctor to treat dwarfism in a chinese boy we just adopted.

[ramacher]

HAHAHA LOL!!! Only problem is they come premixed so they wont last as long.

[ramacher]

Hey Lifeguard turn your PM on so I can pm you a message

[Lifeguard102]

I have no idea how.
Maybe it's bc I don't have high enough post count.
You can email me though at my hush.
Gear has already don't ask me how though. lol

[Belial10732]

LR3 doesn't necessarily add to muscle growth, huIGF-1 does. There is a similar post where pinnacle explains why this is but using huIGF-1 and MGF is the best!

That's BS. Sorry for getting long winded in this reply, but that whole line of thinking is part of why bodybuilding "science" pains me so much.

Long {Arg3} IGF-1 binds to the same receptors and activates them the same way as huIGF-1 does. RTKs are simple on/off switches, and if a substrate binds and activates the receptor, it does so on an all-or-nothing basis. In this case, there is ample proof that the aa substitution and amino acid modification in the (3) position do not inhibit IGF's ability to bind to the kinase. In fact, there are several different modifications to IGF-1 that can change the pharmacokinetics without altering the binding affinity of the compound.

I have read all those posts and there is not a single shred of proof for this claim, be it mechanistic or empirical (in a laboratory or clinical trial setting) that holds up to even light scrutiny. The arguments that side effects are why it never made it to trials is also incorrect (My job involves evaluating clinical trials for efficacy- we'll leave it at that)... simply put, the LR3 modification offers no marked advantages in a practical therapeutic setting (e.g. still every day injections as a therapeutic agent), and the conditions it would treat are too rare to be very profitable. LR3's longer duration of action also makes it less effective as a diagnostic compound. Long story short, nobody's spent the millions and millions on PII-IV testing, IND submissions, PDUFA fees, NDA applications, investigator fees etc. because it simply makes no financial sense. As for the argument that animal models do not apply to human models in terms of clinical endpoints... correct! However, in this case we know what a certain compound does when activated in humans (IGF-1), so all the animal models show is binding affinity. (Rat studies show that IGF-1 LR3 binds to and activates the receptor- the same receptor that humans have. There is no ambiguity here. The endpoint is binding affinity, not therapeutic outcomes)

Mechanistically, there is NO way to modify a RTK-binding peptide hormone so as to select for different effects. If you could explain how adding on 13 amino acids to a peptide could block certain effects while leaving others intact (glucose disposal but not muscle building? please.) you'd likely be a very sought after Nobel Prize laureate.

If you want to argue that IGF-1 is fairly useless for the price, then by all means do so. But that "LR3 is crap for muscle building" thinking is one of the most clear examples of why many of these drugs are outlawed... because the people who use them have next to ZERO idea what they're talking about... and may read a lot of relevant information, but have no ability to draw viable conclusions.

[Lifeguard102]

Belial thank you for the great post.
I agree with you on the similarities to lr3igf + huigf-1 as far as pharmacodynamics are concerned.

My question is are you familiar with the FDA approved product increlex?
-It comes reconstituted.
-40 ml.
-The indicated dose is 1,200 mg bid.
-It must be used within a month

Can you explain why this is so high + more important to BB what would such a dose be capable of? In terms of muscle growth, recovery, strength + SE?

Please feel free to speak "off label" and apply your knowlege to the BB community.

Thanks
Life

[Belial10732]

Belial thank you for the great post.
I agree with you on the similarities to lr3igf + huigf-1 as far as pharmacodynamics are concerned.

My question is are you familiar with the FDA approved product increlex?
-It comes reconstituted.
-40 ml.
-The indicated dose is 1,200 mg bid.
-It must be used within a month

Can you explain why this is so high + more important to BB what would such a dose be capable of? In terms of muscle growth, recovery, strength + SE?

Please feel free to speak "off label" and apply your knowlege to the BB community.

Thanks
Life

Hi life,

I do know a bit about increlex. When kids are prescribed IGF-1 these days, more often than not it's increlex that they're given. What's interesting to note is that my point about why LR3 has not made it through trials applies here.. Increlex was pushed through approval as an "orphan drug"... these are drugs developed for conditions that are exceedingly rare; in other words, there's no real blockbuster potential for any drugs here. The FDA gives special incentives (lower fees, etc.) to encourage pharmas to go ahead and develop these drugs anyway. Pharmas do so often in the hopes that they can find secondary uses for these compounds once approved. If your basic IGF-1 was already an orphan drug, a modification of the compound with equal-to-fewer clinical uses and a similar safety profile is a non-starter. Few companies would want to absorb the cost of a second orphan drug similar to what's already on market...even a noninferiority endpoint here wouldn't give them much market share!! (noninferiority is where the clinical trial is only meant to prove that a new drug is no WORSE than an existing drug in terms of clinical endpoints, sides, etc. These are done in cases where a new drug is cheaper to produce, may have similar but different side effects that certain populations might consider more manageable, or may allow new kinds of patients to be included in the dosing)

mecasermin (The generic name) is synthetic IGF-1, more or less identical to the biological compound (same sequence). Going off memory, the indication is for peds patients with IGFD or GH gene deletion who don't respond to GH treatment (in this case, due to presence of GH antibodies which destroy the peptide), with a maximum dose around 0.12mg/kg (120mcg/kg, or 55 mcg/pound) given twice daily (Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone; on my Droid at the moment so can't be arsed to find the clinical information!) What this means is that for a small to average patient (50 pounds), the dosing can be close to 5-6mg per day.

I believe mecasermin (increlex) is 10mg/ml of IGF-1, I THOUGHT it was a 4ml vial. (40mg/vial). If anybody's curious, I believe it's suspended in water, NaCL, acetate, and benzyl alcohol.

The reason the dose is so high, well... bear in mind these are growing children who are supposed to be having a systemic response. Given the lack of data on low doses of IGF-1 in humans for skeletal muscle hypertrophy purposes, we can really just point to the clinical data here as the maximum accepted dose. Worth noting are some of the sides these kids had; I think there were cases of children developing obstructive sleep apnea because their tonsils grew so much.

Now I'm not a specialist in IGF-1 by any means, but given what we know about its mechanisms, I would argue there is no reason to even approach that clinical dose. Long story short, this is basic IGF-1, and I'd stick with what little empirical and clinical data we have on human administration. As for why it needs to be used so quickly... well, these preparations are made in completely sterile labs. Even sterile technique on initial vial entry can cause mild contamination. FDA requires companies do some long term studies on compound stability after initial use, and I suppose that data was likely showing either mild product degradation (i.e., the amount of active compound was decreasing past a certain threshold) or contamination. Without access to the FDA report, I don't know which.

Either way, basic deal... it's IGF-1, treat it as such.

[Belial10732]

Just managed to quickly sit down and check a few things. Yep, 0.12mg/kg is the max dosage, and the solution it's shipped in is 0.05M acetate. Assuming a molecular weight of 60g/mol-1, and that my math skills aren't too rusty, that can equate to about a 0.3% solution of acetic acid. So it's stored at that concentration, without freezing, and is considered stable.

Just as an aside, for anybody who was still uncertain of stability when reconstituted with an aa solution.

[Lifeguard102]

I just read your post and you're correct.
I have even gone so far as to call my local pharmacy. The WAP is $900.
Belial can you talk "off label" as to the dose a body builder would take?
My friend is a 250 lb man. He usually takes lr3Igf 20mcg x3 ED.
What would this translate to in increlex?

Thanks.

[ramacher]

Interesting stuff no doubt. But still there has been no clinical trials done on LR3, but lots on rhIGF-1.

[Lifeguard102]

Hey Ramacher,
I think we can go from "real world" and gather our evidence.
When a Pharma company completes a trial and publishes findings the have controlled variables of the study.

For example, I am claiming my drug causes a 56% inc in muscle growth . I also have a study to prove it. If the doctor knows from experiece its more like 12-15% muscle growth the study goes out the window.

Lots of folks have had great success from lr3. You can find a number of logs if you google.

I want to hear the extrapolation to what Increlex can do for bodybuilders.

[Belial10732]

I'll put a response together tonight, life, this cellphone typing is killing me. Basically you need to dilute Increlex to use it off-label.

More later.

[Belial10732]

Here we go:

Increlex is 10mg/ml, which equates to 10,000 mcg/ml. This is WAY too high to measure accurately.

What you'll need to use it is a second vial (10 or 20 ml) for dilution. I would recommend diluting with a 0.3% aa solution, to maintain its clinical stability.

With an insulin syringe, measure out 0.1 ml (10 units on most syringes). That gets you 1mg. In the SAME SYRINGE, draw in a further 0.9ml of aa solution. This is because you can assume a small amount of the compound would remain in the syringe, and when dealing with small volumes this adds up to a lot of solute. Inject this into your sterile vial.

You now have a 1,000mcg/ml solution- still too high. Add another 9ml of 0.3% aa solution, and you have what should be a stable solution of 100mcg/ml IGF-1. Store refrigerated. No further dilution needed before injection if it's 0.3%.

If your friend is 250 pounds and doing 3 shots a day, I'd see no reason to change dosing with this compound- simply have him do 0.2mlx3 a day, and he'll see equivalent results. As far as what results to expect... I can't speak to that definitively. I personally am a fan of IGF-1 for various reasons, but that's for another topic. Chances are, results will be exactly what they were with LR3, HOWEVER the lethargy should be slightly easier to control if carbs are taken in shortly after injection. I'd prefer it over LR3 for this reason.

[Lifeguard102]

Thanks B,
I hope 2 things.
My doc writes this for me
Your mathmatics are correct. lol.

When you are able to PM please give me a shout.


Feel free to elaborate on what it is you like Igf-1 for.

Have you any experience with lr3Igf?

Thank you,
Life

[ramacher]

what exactly are you going to tell your doc to
write a prescription? this will be interesting

[Lifeguard102]

Im going to show data on igf, he is on-board with gh, and ask.
He is similar to a life extension doc. Meaning he is really up on TRT, gh, etc.

[ramacher]

hey how much increlex can you get and how much does it cost with a script? There is a different post on this board or it might be a different one regarding a website with fake scripts. And I might just test this one out.

[Lifeguard102]

Don't call me paranoid but I don't know the rules here but assume it's a NONO to talk about this in the open. I urge you NOT to mess with anyone promoting "fake scripts" as that is a criminal offense. Be careful Ramacher .

[Belial10732]

Agreed. I don't know rules here either, but in this case Life is talking about a legitimate prescription, this is perfectly legal! Any off label use has been hypothetical talk, regardless.