Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread: (GHRH)/CJC-1295 vs Long R3 IGF-1
-
10-20-2007, 12:49 PM #1Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Sparta!Athlete town USA
- Posts
- 693
(GHRH)/CJC-1295 vs Long R3 IGF-1
I'm very intested in these compounds and am going to start one or the other.Does anyone know which is better and why?They seem very similar. My goals are strength,power,recovery and endance plus maybe some fat loss not looking to bulk up.I also deal with random drug tests, these are untestable right?
-
10-20-2007, 01:50 PM #2New Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Posts
- 2
I think you might find some differences between the two. igf has a very short half life. It is usually taken in very low doses immediately after working out. i have seen a recommendation for 3 times per week protocol.
cjc 295 is pretty new. it looks very interesting. i believe it is recommended to be taken once or twice per week at a dosage of 30 micrograms per kilogram of body weight.
if you look at the cost of each, cjc 295 is a lot higher.
i should say, i have no personal experience with either. like you i have recently been researching the two.
-
10-20-2007, 02:20 PM #3Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Sparta!Athlete town USA
- Posts
- 693
I'm leaning toward the Igf-lr3 beacause it is not as new and has been proven...We need more info,anabolic gods shower us with your wisdom!
-
10-21-2007, 07:13 AM #4
CJC-1295 vs IGF-1
You really can not compare these two peptides. It is the same as asking to compare HGH vs IGF-1 (search for the thread). Taking CJC-1295 stimulates the pituitary to release HGH, so it would be wiser to compare CJC-1295 and taking HGH directly. CJC-1295 should, in theory give you all of the benefits of taking HGH with weekly or biweekly shots (including the benefits of elevated IGF-1 levels from the HGH release). If you take just IGF-1 you will only benefit IGF-1. It is all about what you want to accomplish and what your goals are.
DAK
-
10-21-2007, 09:17 AM #5Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Sparta!Athlete town USA
- Posts
- 693
Originally Posted by dak290
-
10-21-2007, 09:37 AM #6Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Sparta!Athlete town USA
- Posts
- 693
Originally Posted by Jonnycerious
Seeing my goals which do you think would help me most?
-
10-21-2007, 10:29 AM #7
How much are you paying for ithye cjc-1295? The dosage should be 60 to 250 mcg/Kg every 1-2 weeks. Thats 9 to 37.5mg for a 150lb person, 12 to 50mg for 200...and so on
-
10-21-2007, 03:42 PM #8Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Sparta!Athlete town USA
- Posts
- 693
Originally Posted by TexSavant
Mother ****er!!! that shit better make me fly for that price!
-
10-21-2007, 04:58 PM #9Originally Posted by kend
-
10-21-2007, 09:57 PM #10Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Sparta!Athlete town USA
- Posts
- 693
Originally Posted by Nickster#1
-
10-22-2007, 09:24 AM #11
Price and dosage
Originally Posted by Jonnycerious
The dosage suggestion that "everyone" is throwing around comes from the halted clinical trial. If anyone knows anything about clinical trials, it that the first thing they try to establish is the correct effective safe dosage. Thats why they use different control groups and groups with different dosages (some extremely high). The clinical trial most are referring to, was done in AIDS patients. The IGF-1 serums levels in AIDS patents (and HGH for that matter) are lower then a normal healthy person. This suggests that the pituitary and HGH / IGF-1 pathways of a AIDS patient are compromised. So thus the clinical data is skewed. Thus most people's deductions from the resulting IGF-1 serum levels and the dosages used are not accurate. I am using 1000mcg(about 9mcg/kg) a week and my IGF-1 serum levels are 372ng/ml. According to the clinical trial data I would have to be using 250mcg/kg a week to obtain that result. All clinical trials that I found on CJC-1295 were done on AIDS patients. So none of this data is directly applicable to normal healthy individuals. Recheck your pricing with that dose.
-
10-22-2007, 10:24 AM #12Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Sparta!Athlete town USA
- Posts
- 693
Originally Posted by Jonnycerious
Did you ever take any of these by there self or without the other one?Better yet what does your Endo think about the new peptides?Last edited by IntenseAthlete; 10-22-2007 at 10:27 AM.
-
10-22-2007, 11:11 AM #13Originally Posted by Jonnycerious
Good question about my Endo. While he will not condone my actions he seems quite intrigued by my experiment. He had never heard of CJC-1295 before I started my research but has since done a lot of reading on it. He is actually the one that helped me with the dosing scheme I am currently using. He does not like me using IGF-1 because high dosages in humans have not been studied yet. (but I use moderate doses for a short period) Also I was off of the Long R3 IGF-1 for a week before my blood work so he said that it did not affect the results. CJC-1295 is simply the Growth hormone releasing Hormone (GHRH) responsible for HGH's release from the pituitary, but the GHRH in CJC-1295 is modified (bioconjugativated) to resists the body's on mechanisms for deactivating the normal GHRH. Because of this the HGH you are getting is the purest most potent form (made by your own body). He said he would rather me do rHGH or CJC-1295, but if he had his choice I would be on none.
My opinion:
So the human HGH and rHGH (recombinant HGH; synthetic) may differ in potency because of their tertiary structure may be slightly different. (Shape determines the interaction of the polypeptide and it's receptor) Thus making one more potent then the other. The HGH molecule is only meant to exist a short period of time in the body so it is inherently fragile. Reconstituted rHGH is shown to have the bio-identical amino acid sequence of human HGH but to have a slightly different tertiary structure (shape) then human HGH via electron microscopy. This doesn't make it useless but slightly less effective then the natural HGH. This may also account for the potency differences between US and China rHGHs, since manufacturing processes can affect tertiary structure also. And by the way, I am Biopharmaceutical-Engineering consultant, so I know a little about complex proteins. Just my take from my background.
Anyway sorry for the science lesson, let get back on track.
My goal has always been to shred fat and lean up. I would say that the sides for CJC-1295 and rHGH are the same. It depends on your dosage to the degree of sides you get. As for Igf-1, I do not really get sides. I use it along with dbol to kickstart my all my cycles. It seems to make your muscles (especially the ones you inject it in) extremely hard and gives you good pumps. I suspect this is do to its shuttling affect and increased blood flow. Also I believe IGF-1 also help me shed fat also, but has a limited duration of usage. So it depends on how much you wanna lose i guess. I like all 3. Until CJC-1295 (or other GH releasing chemicals) proves they're safe and effective, then rHGH is probally your best bet. But I believe the industry will eventual find a GH releasing compound that with surpass the limitation of rHGH. Thats why I am trying CJC-1295.
-
10-22-2007, 01:56 PM #14
Dak!
I've heard people using CJC-1295 as a HRT regime. Would you think injecting this peptide once a week would gain you as many benefits as using 2iu hgh ED? Regarding skin, fatloss, improved sleep etc.
-
10-22-2007, 02:36 PM #15Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Sparta!Athlete town USA
- Posts
- 693
Originally Posted by henry porter2
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Zebol 50 - deca?
12-10-2024, 07:18 PM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS