IGF-1 Lr3 Log - BAC Water VS Acetic Acid

[Bouncer]

DAY 21

Just like before. igf is keeping me very lean, fat loss around abdomen is clear. abs pop much more on then off.

dont want to talk about fullness or size because i am also running dbol and that will obviously be the stronger of the 2 in terms of fullness.

so far in terms of fat loss i would say mixing with BAC or AA are about the same. when i run igf again, i will not go through the hassle and stinging of AA.

[Mr I]

Got me convinced, I'm gonna try it but for 8 weeks so 2 lots

[Mr I]

should I get media or receptor grade

[Bouncer]

should I get media or receptor grade

media grade Lyophilized lr3

[Bouncer]

FINAL CONCLUSION

Finished off the second bottle the other day.

The conclusion I have come to is that AA and BAC water work exactly the same. Only difference is that AA is a pain in the ass.

So take my advice for whatever its worth.. just use BAC..

[jack tors]

Yeah, I read to use the AA if you want to store it for up to a year w/o refrigeration (dresser draw, cabinet). I dont see why it wouldnt last a few months in BAC water in the frig. if you plan to use it right away.

[adv112233]

Hey Bouncer, any benefit to running GHRP with the IGF? If no then which would you choose to run solo with?

[Bouncer]

never ran them together so i cant say.

solo i would say igf.

[Tiger]

1. Recent log: check
2. Someone who doesn't blindly follow what people spout on the internet: check
3. Willing to research through scientific literature: check

MARRY ME!

On a more serious note, I sub'd to thank you for your post. I, like you, have a background in science and didn't like reading a lot of bullshit that I knew was unfounded (as far as basic biological processes were concerned), so I researched the peptides I was hoping to use in the scientific literature on my own.

I first began with hGH because this is what I intended to use, but since I am in Canada, it proved too difficult to get (most suppliers have abandoned reship policies to Canada due to dramatic increase in seizures and my local source wanted 750$ per kit... crazy).

I resorted to IGF-1 LR3 instead and just began using it this week, but the injection burns were so painful I tried looking for answers on whether the compound really lost potency after a few days as people said. Even if I backfilled my syringe with bac water at a 4:1 ratio, it'd still burn.

My 1mg kit comes in 10x 100mcg vials though, so at 40mcg E3D/EOD I go through a vial in less than 5 days. It would appear bac water will be an appropriate diluent for my 100mcg vials according to your results, so I am happy someone figured it out.

Scientifically, it would make sense that IGF-1 LR3 lasted longer in AA since it prefers low pH even in the body, whereas bac water is neutral. But for a few days, I'll just use bac water and avoid the frickin' burns alltogether.

I'm not sure if you use hGH elsewhere, but to thank you, here's my literature synthesis with accompanying articles.

I first became interested in hGH for its reported metabolic effects, mainly its reputation for inhibiting protein oxidation, increasing protein synthesis and augmenting lipolysis (as hypothesized by recent articles, by temporarily and partly inhibiting glycogen moving cells, forcing the body to seek "energy" in stored fat rather than circulating glycogen in the bloodstream for general repairs). I've researched rhGH quite thoroughly as I was quite appalled at the amount of misinformation I was reading while researching hGH and its synthetic counterpart, rhGH. Still being in university in a scientific field, I still have access to all scientific libraries through my university's online portal. After reading a lot of erroneous and crappy threads everywhere on the internet, some of which went from mildly inaccurate to hot steaming manure, I decided not to trust what I read online and opted to seek answers through peer-reviewed scientific literature. I'll gladly share what I found out and read, but you should not take my word for it. I've included a link at the bottom of this thread to seven articles published between 2008 and today (so they are recent), zipped in a file. All are in PDF formats and were acquired through PubMed. Read them diligently.

First, you should know that there have been very few studies on the exogenous supplementation of rhGH in healthy human beings. hGH supplementation for GH deficient patients (referred as GHD patients for the rest of this post) began in the sixties, and since then, its efficacy has been well documented in the scientific literature. At the time, the hGH would be extracted from the pituitary gland of cadavers. This presented obvious risks, and after a few professional Russian bodybuilders died from Kreutzfeld-Jakob disease (mad cow disease) in the nineties because their hGH came from infected cadavers, the popularity of the drug took a slight drop in the bodybuilding world (this is briefly discussed in Dr. Ronald Klatz's book "Grow Young with HGH", a MD who has been quite active in advocating for hGH in general, and mostly for its anti-aging effects). When the synthetic process for creating it was discovered (referred to a recombinant human Growth Hormone, or rhGH), such angst was no longer necessary.

Back to our studies.

As I said, there have been very few controlled studies on non-GHD, healthy human beings. The reason is evident: all peer-reviewed studies must first be accepted by an ethics committee, and considering the illegal nature of the use of hGH in most countries for sports/performance enhancement uses, very few universities would take the risk of exposing their research department to legal liability.

On that front, a very interesting and tightly controlled study published in March 2008 in the UK, titled "Physical Effects of Short-Term Recombinant Human Growth Hormone Administration in Abstinent Steroid Dependency" (Michael R. Graham & cie) showed very impressive results even on a six-days clinical trial. This article is included in the zip linked at the bottom. The GH group was administered a daily dose of 0.058 IU*kg*day, so someone weighting 100kg/220lbs would have been getting a 5.8IU/dose, which is consistent with the underground literature, and could even be considered a moderately high dose. The test subjects had been off AAS and any other drugs for twelve weeks and the rhGH was administered alone. The subjects lost 1% of BF in six days, from 21.2% to 19.2%, and that loss was maintained after the GH injections stopped. It's one of the first, if not the first study, to scientifically establish the benefits of rhGH on healthy human beings. There were some minimal gains in lean mass and strength as well. The authors did hypothesize in their conclusion that the twelve weeks of wash-off period might not have been enough and that the subjects might still have been in a latent catabolic phase due to their AAS use, which may have been ameliorated by the anabolic effect of rhGH administration. In simpler terms, even though its use had been documented in the underground literature since 1983, exogenous hGH supplementation was never scientifically proven as being effective or helpful until a few years ago.

Now, the main reason that prompted me to research hGH more thoroughly is because I had found a lot of contradicting information on dosage, but especially time and site of injections. The aforementioned 2008 study used sub-cutaneous injections, and considering the short half-life of hGH (two hours at best), it would make sense to do sub-cutaneous injections over intra-muscular since the latter would likely slow down absorption and by extension, efficacy. As for the time of injection, well... there seemed to be a split between the "right before bed" crowd or "just before or after workout" crowd.

To better understand this debate, you should know studies have demonstrated that hGH is released by the pituitary gland in a pulsatile fashion, as opposed to slowly and continuously as the thyroid does with T4. Most of your natural production (which measures at 1-1.5IU/day on average) occurs during deep-stage REM sleep (approx. 2-3 hours after you've fallen asleep) and some of it after intense exercise. Although both hGH and rhGH are 22kD isomers, the natural kind contains 191 amino acids (191aa) while the synthetic version comes in both 191aa and 192aa. Some people hypothesized that taking rhGH before bed would NOT interfere with natural hGH production, and since hGH is best used by the body while you sleep (this is a logical statement as it follow your pituitary's natural behavior), taking your rHGH injection before sleep (say 30 to 60 minutes before hitting the sack) would be most appropriate.

HOWEVER, I have found no evidence to support this claim in the scientific literature. As suggested by a regular member here on SE, why then take the risk of shutting down your natural production? rhGH must be used over the long term to show results, at the very least six months, but some people have been taking it for years. So why take it before bed and risk shutting down your pituitary? Until someone shows me a controlled study that proves me wrong, I believe taking your rhGH before bed is a terrible idea. If you ever did shut down your pituitary, there is a good chance GHRP-6 supplementation could kickstart it back into gear, but again... why take the risk?

The 2008 study said they injected it in the morning at the exact same time. It didn't mention if it was pre- or after- workout. My interpretation is that shortly before or after a workout is best, probably after. Since hGH inhibits protein oxidation, augments protein synthesis and increases lipolysis, it would be logical to think rhGH is more beneficial after a workout, say 5-60 minutes after (this does not apply to IGF-1 LR3 supplementation by the way), when your muscles are starved for glycogen and intense repairs are underway.

What I have been doing is ramping up from 1.5IU to 3IU (I'm at 2IU now) but when I reach 3IU, I will split it in two doses. Considering the short half-life of hGH (and unlike IGF-1, the cellular response is shorter than 72 hours, which is why people say the half-life of IGF-1 LR3 is not important to consider, but it is with rhGH), releasing two "pulses" of 1.5IU apart will yield better results than one dose of 3IU. This is established in the literature as well. In one of the attached study, researchers found that administering two small doses per day over one big one, even if the single dose was five timers higher in concentration, yielded better results. It should also be said that rhGH is more efficient if taken every day. I've seen protocols that suggest 5 days on, 2 days off, but this is complete and utter manure. The only reason to do so is to save money. Unlike ECA, IGF-1 LR3 or other drugs, hGH receptors do not need any downtime. If you can afford it, stick to an ED regimen.

As for sides, joint pain or swollen hands are the most common at low doses (<5IU/day). Ramping up from 1.5IU (for a week), then go up in 0.5 increments slowly, should avoid any sides whatsoever. At higher dosage, the articles mentioned a tender bowel, an extended gut and acromegaly at dosages of 10IU/day and beyond. Acromegaly is a condition in which organs and bones become enlarged beyond normal. This is easily explained. GH (the key letter is G, which stands for growth), if taken in high enough dosage, will signal every other organs, even your bones and especially your intestines, to grow. GH is converted to IGF-1 (the bioactive byproduct) in the liver, and intestines have the highest amount of IGF-1 receptors in the body. If you go too high, the intestines will grow, making your gut look bigger. There is no way around this.

Consider your natural production hovers at 1-1.5IU per day. Consider the controlled study mentioned above used a 0.058IU*kg per day dose. I frown at those who propose 10IU and more. 7 times the natural production seems awfully high, especially when plenty of people have reported very positive results at doses as low as 2IU/day (which is still doubling what your body usually produces!) Remember that your body and its metabolism always prefer the status quo, a healthy and balanced equilibrium. This is called homeostasis in the scientific literature. The further you stray away from this balance, the more your body will react and act up. Considering rhGH's price, its established side effects at high dosage and its overall use, I would suggest anywhere from 2IU-5IU per day for at least six months is the best way to approach GH. I've seen bodybuilders on other forums state their opinion that even 5IU is too low to get significant gains in mass, and that unless you hit 10IU ED, you won't get the best results. I think this is looking at it from the worst possible angle.

GH's biggest advantages are enhanced fat loss, gains in lean mass, overall enhanced health and regenerative capabilities. If you want to gain mass, anabolic steroids or testosterone are a much better and cheaper alternative for these goals, and GH is often used in conjunction with these. I have no experience on that front and have no interest in it either as I use rhGH for its metabolic effects, so others will have to chip in if you're interested in finding out more.

What I am considering right now, and am actively researching, is stacking the rhGH with IGF-1 LR3 at a dosage of 40 mcg/day EOD for 4-6 weeks (with the same cool off period before taking it again as unlike rhGH, IGF1-LR3's molecular structure is different enough from endogenous IGF-1 conversion that receptors eventually develop a tolerance, which can only be dissuaded by a long break until receptors desensitize) to supplement my continuous GH use. There is supposedly great documented synergy between rhGH and IGF1LR3 use, but I want to get more facts before I start pinning more drugs into my body.

I think this pretty much covers everything I found out and know. I hope you found it helpful.

Link to aforementioned peer-reviewed articles (2008-2011 publication dates):
rhGH Research Studies.zip

[Tiger]

There is very little scientific literature (that is peer-reviewed and reliable) on IGF-1 LR3 because it is so new, at least compared to exogenous rhGH supplementation, which had surfaced in the underground BB literature in 1983 already. Since then there have been many publications on rhGH, but IGF1 LR3 is a lot more difficult.

Would you vouch for the localized effects people speak of? Personally, I think it's pure placebo effect. IGF-1 LR3 doesn't bind to surface proteins like hIGF-1 does, so I find it difficult to believe.

There's also a recent debate about PWO vs pre-workout pinning. Resistance exercise has a very specific cellular reaction on myocytes (muscle cells) by inducing MFG production. This is known in the literature just about everywhere. MFG another peptide which remains within the cell, then migrates to the cell's nucleus to induce mitosis (cell division and proliferation), among other things. THEN the pituitary releases some hGH, which then turns into hIGF-1 and this IGF-1 then tells the new immature cells in your muscles to specialize into muscle cells, and new myocytes are born.

It would be logical to think that injecting IGF-1 LR3 to define cells while MFG is still trying to do its work would be counter productive. The cellular response induced by IGF-1 LR3 (I am not sure exactly how much natural IGF-1 the body produces or what the hGH->hIGF-1 conversion rate is, but I do know the endogenous supply of hGH is in the neighborhood of 1.5IU per day and I would assume our exogenous IGF-1 LR3 supplementation is many times the natural amount we make each day as well) is quite long lasting according to "bro science", but again... there's no scientific foundation to it.

My guess is that subq, PWO or pre-workout, in the end, they all make very little difference on the overall result over a long period of time.

[ChubbyGirl]

FINAL CONCLUSION

Finished off the second bottle the other day.

The conclusion I have come to is that AA and BAC water work exactly the same. Only difference is that AA is a pain in the ass.

So take my advice for whatever its worth.. just use BAC..

Hi Bouncer,

I have been reading through your posts/Log and found it most enlightening as I too was trying to debunk the myth of the AA vs BAC. As I am a newb researching the hell out of IGF I wanted to see what it was all about: sides, response, expectations, reactions... I also did not come into this with preconceptions nor blind faith in "the proper ways to cycle IGF with AA". So in a nutshell I found your feedback instrumental in quelling my fears on deciding to run IGF-1 LR3 using BAC water instead of AA. I ran my first vial (subQ, 40mcg EOD, 4 wks on 4 off) using AA and I was like "okay this is not so bad"... but after a couple days, the shit builds up some serious steam and it hurts like a SOB. So on my second vial I switched to just BAC and what a WORLD of difference. I keep it in my wine fridge upstairs so I don't have to worry about it being too warm.

Now to get to my question... I am sure you can tell from my screen name, I am NOT a "builder" but rather a serious fat dismantler. :) I am curious from a FAT BURNING point of view, what the best time of day is to pin; Morn, Eve, Bedtime??? I am not doing "hard" pumping workouts like a builder would but rather just getting more activity during my day, spreading out my meals into smaller portions, cleaner and more frequent, cardio then plan to work more lifting into my schedule to preserve the muscle I have and reshape where I need it. Bottom line is I have WAY too much fat on my bod and need to get it off and the Fat Mobilization and rejuvenating effects of IGF got my attention. I want to make sure I am giving it the best opportunity to work for me. I can already see the wrinkles around my eyes fading, injuries heal faster (yes I am accident prone and bruise A LOT) and I have lost weight but I still have a long way to go! any advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance. :)

[Bouncer]

Glad the log helped you.

For someone not concerned with muscle and just concerned about loosing weight I would say the best time to inject would be after you wake up in the morning.

[ChubbyGirl]

Geezus... fast response...

Thanks

[Scrumhalf]

I can see using chemicals to get from lean to uber-lean, but why even bother with chemicals if you are fat? Seems to me you are better off focusing on fat loss and then worry about this stuff when you are tapped out.

[Bouncer]

Scrum has a point, I hope you are trying to fix your issues with diet and training instead of just using igf.