Does IGF-1 Long 3 work?

[Sootybaby]

I have responded to the Bouncers online journal with the same post but feel that this needs a more general airing. So here goes:

I have decided to change tack on the IGF1 Long 3. I have it but wont use it again. Here is my reasoning.

I have doubt's about the use of Long L3 (gro-pep et al). The modification to this analogue of human IGF-1 results in it not reacting to IGF-1 binding proteins (IGF bp) there are number of bp (seven or more) and they play a part in transport and regulation of the effects of IGF-1 in tissues. In serum IGF-1 is predominantly bound to bp-3. In order to cross into tissues from the blood it needs to then bind to bp-2, a cross membrane shuttle. No binding to bp-2 no movement of IGF-1 into tissues.

This is a fundemental flaw in using Long 3. By sub-cutaneous injection it will not get into the bloodstream period and even by intra muscular injection you would need many, many injections into the muscle to get usefull distribution! This lack of binding is not an issue in tissue culture (its actual use) because cultures are usually single cell layers where the IGF-1 receptors are exposed directly to the media containing the long 3.

Use of normal, receptor grade IGF-1 will be effective. However, the amounts produced naturally in the body are relatively high and to boost these levels you would need a prohibitively expensive amount of IGF-1. It has been demostrated that by using Growth Hormone at even 2 I.U. per day can lead to a threefold increase in IGF-1 lvels in elderly patients( who are often GH deficient) and so this is the most effective means of increasing IGF-1 levels.

I think that the pain of injections may be caused by the modification to the IGF-1 analogue. Whilst the bulk of the protien is human (and should not cause any adverse reaction when injected) i suspect that this modification is not a naturally occuring form and as such this is the cause of the pain (on injection), not the fact that the IGF-1 is reconstituted in ( a very mild) acid (proof of this is that mixed with say 4x it's volume of PBS which should neutralize the acid has no effect on the inflammatory response

I believe that the bouncer has given a usefull and true report on the use of IGF-1 long 3 and when you look at the science behind it we should give up on this product and move on!

My supply is staying in the freezer. I may use it tissue culture studies (its correct use) but that's it!

Cheers all,

Sootybaby

[pudgy]

i think you have alot of unfounded opinions, i mod at a board filled with unbiased opinions and good results from people who spent a hell of a lot fo money to try this product and would not be happy if it was wasted.

As far as bouncers progress, or lack of it. Even creatine does not work on everyone, i could guess (as you have repeatedly) why it doesnt work on him, gh and slin use , receptor saturations etc.

I do not like the tone of your post and we will "move on" when we get good and ready, you have the right to your opinions but do not try to qualify them as fact.

[Scorpio]

I have had great results while using IGF. I've used it with and without gear, even as a bridge with great results. I have no doubts of this product nor it's use.

[Sootybaby]

This is in the scientific literature if you choose to read it good buddy. I have no interest in weather people by this stuff, do you? Iwould like you to refute what I have said and back it up by facts. Just beause people may sheepishly follow the latest fad does not mean that it has any proper basis in fact. Next.

[pudgy]

Re: Does IGF-1 Long 3 work?

Originally posted by Sootybaby
I have responded to the Bouncers online journal with the same post but feel that this needs a more general airing. So here goes:

I have decided to change tack on the IGF1 Long 3. I have it but wont use it again. Here is my reasoning.

I have doubt'sOPINION about the use of Long L3 (gro-pep et al). The modification to this analogue of human IGF-1 results in it not reacting to IGF-1 binding proteins (IGF bp) there are number of bp (seven or more) and they play a part in transport and regulation of the effects of IGF-1 in tissues. In serum IGF-1 is predominantly bound to bp-3. In order to cross into tissues from the blood it needs to then bind to bp-2, a cross membrane shuttle. No binding to bp-2 no movement of IGF-1 into tissues.

This is a fundemental flaw in using Long 3. By sub-cutaneous injection it will not get into the bloodstream period and even by intra muscular injection you would need many, many injections into the muscle to get usefull distribution! UNFOUNDED PERSOANL OPINIONThis lack of binding is not an issue in tissue culture (its actual use) because cultures are usually single cell layers where the IGF-1 receptors are exposed directly to the media containing the long 3.MORE OPINION

Use of normal, receptor grade IGF-1 will be effective. However, the amounts produced naturally in the body are relatively high and to boost these levels you would need a prohibitively expensive amount of IGF-1.OPINION AND ALSO INCORRECT It has been demostrated that by using Growth Hormone at even 2 I.U. per day can lead to a threefold increase in IGF-1 lvels in elderly patients( who are often GH deficient) and so this is the most effective means of increasing IGF-1 levels.

I thinkOPINION OPINION OPINION that the pain of injections may be caused by the modification to the IGF-1 analogue. Whilst the bulk of the protien is human (and should not cause any adverse reaction when injected) i suspect that this modification is not a naturally occuring form and as such this is the cause of the pain (on injection), not the fact that the IGF-1 is reconstituted in ( a very mild) acid (proof of this is that mixed with say 4x it's volume of PBS which shouldOPINION[/CP;PR] neutralize the acid has no effect on the inflammatory response

I believe that the bouncer has given a usefull and true report on the use of IGF-1 long 3 and when you look at the science behind it we should give up on this product and move on!SCIENCE ? WHERE IS THE SCIENCE????

My supply is staying in the freezer. I may use it tissue culture studies (its correct use) but that's it!

Cheers all,

Sootybaby

First of all. I have zero interest in the sales or consumption of this product.

What you say is opinion , post some facts and then we will talk about facts, i have no reason to dispute your opinion because it is unfounded.

[Scorpio]

I think that the pain of injections may be caused by the modification to the IGF-1 analogue

What pain of injections? I've done igf 3 times and have never had a single painful injection, I do them all IM in the bi's and tri's. I use BA to preload the syringe.

[Sootybaby]

Pudgy. This is the discussion I wanted to have. I am specifically refering to IGF-1 Long 3. Do you know the science behind the action of IGF-1 and its binding proteins? To reiterate, Long 3 does NOT react with any of natural IGF binding proteins (FACT). If some of these binding proteins are necessary for IGF1 to function in the body (FACT) where does this leave Long 3?

Let's take the pain issue. What does cause the injection pain? Here we have to have some conjecture becuse this product is not for human use so I think that asking gro-pep why may draw a blank to say the least. Its primary structure is the same as human IGF 1 in the main. I've looked at the bacterial endotoxin levels and these are low ( equal to jintropin and this has no site injectin pain) so this leaves the fact that it is derived from 0.1M acetic acid and is normally reconstitued in acid (however these levels are again low and if you mix with phosphate buffered saline (pH7.2) this will bring the pH of the liquid back to physiological pH prior to injection (fact). I have to conjecture that it is the 18 amino acid sequence tacked on to the end of the molecule which interrupts the binding proteins could be leading to a localised reaction (SUPPOSITION- but a real possibility).

I can't say why some people say that they have had good results from using Long 3 (placebo effect?) But I am challenging the use of IGF-1 Long 3 on the basis of what we currently know about how IGF 1 acts in the body. I have no problem with IGF 1 per se. Just IGF 1 Long 3.

Best regards

Sootybaby

[Sootybaby]

Pudgy

I've got to go home now. We are working to different time Zones. My work involves research into this field. I will pull out a few references to papers in IGF 1 and binding proteins (some of which may be downloadable online) and post them as soon as I can. Scorpio, are you using the grow-pep Long 3 product?

[pudgy]

igf-1 has such a short half life it would not work unless it were on an iv drip, so why do you not have a problem with it ?

[TooPowerful4u]

I gotta agree with Pudgy here. I think bouncer might not have gotten great results due to receptor saturation. Go the the anabolicreview board for IGF-1. There are TONS of guys on there getting results from IGF-1 every day. Its mostly some site growth in the muscles they inject the most, and lowered bodyfat. Check it out. You can state all the science u want, if it works then it works. Who can argue with real results?

[Choke03]

There are way to many top vets and even pro's getting good results for this to be a placebo.

[Scorpio]

I've never heard of a placebo altering personal appearance, muscle formation, or giving you carpel tunnel symptoms. Nor do I claim to be a scientist, however I know it works for me.

[sana]

I'm curious to see more scientific studies on it.

For all the people who say they've seen results, how many can attribute it solely to the IGF-1? Many of the people who were on it were also stacking it with something else.

I wonder if it was truely the IGF or if it was the other anabolics doing its work.

[Scorpio]

I did it alone on a bridge, usind a 4-4-4 scheme. Insulin 4 weeks, igf 4 weeks, insulin 4 weeks. I saw great results, noticed increased insulin sensitivity coming off it and going to insulin.

[sana]

i think my question would be then based on science - why do you think it works? b/c if what sootybaby is saying is true - that there is no protein to bind the IGF-1 Long due to the modification to the IGF - what is giving you results? i'm not trying to instigate, i just like seeing the science of things and so far, i think sootybaby has offered a logical argument which backs up his doubts on the effectiveness of IGF-1 Long. i'm just waiting for more vets to come back with some more info on the science of how it would work then.