How to know if your IGF-1 Lr3 is real?

[Chips7]

Hi boys

How to test if our IGF-1 LR3 is true with a blood test?

What is it supposed to increase on a blood test, hgh serum or igf-1 level?

Which protocol would be ideal!?

Example for hgh we do 10ui 3hours before blood.

Because when we inject hgh, sérum lvl of hgh show immediately on blood test but igf-1 lvl need time to raise.

It is the same for IGF-1 Lr3 or its work differently!?

Knowing that IGF-1 LR3 it is supposed to act immediately, so logically we should see it somewhere on a blood test, right?

As we do for hgh & test.

 

[Gigantic]

I hear you get an insane pump and tons of strength. Take this with a grain of salt as it’s bro science.

 

[Type-IIx]

Expect reduced (if any change to) serum IGF-I concentrations on bloodwork (LR3 in most assays is not crossreactive with IGF-I; it rapidly clears circulation due to lack of IGFBP binding).

The only bloodwork value that'd be significantly altered acutely by LR3 IGF-I would be blood glucose: of course, there's no way to distinguish it from slin (i.e., it could still be counterfeit/replacement product).

See if @janoshik can help you with HPLC testing.

 

[Chips7]

Expect reduced (if any change to) serum IGF-I concentrations on bloodwork (LR3 in most assays is not crossreactive with IGF-I; it rapidly clears circulation due to lack of IGFBP binding).

The only bloodwork value that'd be significantly altered acutely by LR3 IGF-I would be blood glucose: of course, there's no way to distinguish it from slin (i.e., it could still be counterfeit/replacement product).

See if @janoshik can help you with HPLC testing.

That why is so hard to know or so painful for our wallet.

Thanks!

 

[lilhawk]

Start off by getting legit Increlex, otherwise you’re wasting your money.

 

[Type-IIx]

Start off by getting legit Increlex, otherwise you’re wasting your money.

False.

I've seen you boast about the mythical "legit Increlex" too many times bro.

In human skeletal muscle, LR3 IGF-I's equipotent effect to IGF-I (physiological concentrations) suggests skeletal muscle-secreted IGFBPs do not affect the response to exogenous IGF-I with respect to protein anabolism.
(LR3 is designed to decrease affinity for the 6 IGFBPs). We know rhIGF-I (and thus LR3 IGF-I) decrease muscle protein breakdown & increase muscle protein synthesis (and act predominantly to stimulate muscle cell proliferation & differentiation).

Your "legit Increlex" (rhIGF-I) of legend must be transported at 2 - 8°C unopened, so unless you are receiving it through a supply chain that maintains your vials at refrigeration at all times, you'd be wasting your money.

In any case, LR3 would seem to be a viable anabolic agent, comparable to rhIGF-I (if real; a very significant problem for either purported peptide).

This is not to say LR3 IGF-I is, by contrast, stable or not subject to transportation & storage constraints for maintaining potency: but you've already pivoted away from the question asked (how to verify the authenticity/identity of potential LR3).

 

[graciebjj]

False.

I've seen you boast about the mythical "legit Increlex" too many times bro.

In human skeletal muscle, LR3 IGF-I's equipotent effect to IGF-I (physiological concentrations) suggests skeletal muscle-secreted IGFBPs do not affect the response to exogenous IGF-I with respect to protein anabolism.
(LR3 is designed to decrease affinity for the 6 IGFBPs). We know rhIGF-I (and thus LR3 IGF-I) decrease muscle protein breakdown & increase muscle protein synthesis (and act predominantly to stimulate muscle cell proliferation & differentiation).

Your "legit Increlex" (rhIGF-I) of legend must be transported at 2 - 8°C unopened, so unless you are receiving it through a supply chain that maintains your vials at refrigeration at all times, you'd be wasting your money.

In any case, LR3 would seem to be a viable anabolic agent, comparable to rhIGF-I (if real; a very significant problem for either purported peptide).

This is not to say LR3 IGF-I is, by contrast, stable or not subject to transportation & storage constraints for maintaining potency: but you've already pivoted away from the question asked (how to verify the authenticity/identity of potential LR3).

As an aside, I've seen a number of claims that IGF-1 LR3 must be reconstituted with Acetic Acid Water rather than Bacteriostatic Water. Many claim that the latter (or even sterile water) will cause IGF-1 LR3 to rapidly degrade.

Do you have any insight on this? It doesn't seem to make an awful lot of sense to me.

 

[Type-IIx]

As an aside, I've seen a number of claims that IGF-1 LR3 must be reconstituted with Acetic Acid Water rather than Bacteriostatic Water. Many claim that the latter (or even sterile water) will cause IGF-1 LR3 to rapidly degrade.

Do you have any insight on this? It doesn't seem to make an awful lot of sense to me.

I don't know that it matters. Perhaps @PeterBond can shed some light on this question better. I suspect it's mostly irrelevant minutae, whether dissolved in 0.9% acetic acid vs. 0.9% benzyl alcohol. Sterile water will not meaningfully degrade LR3.

On the one hand, rhIGF-I (e.g., Increlex) is reconstituted for subcutaneous administration in 0.9% benzyl alcohol ("bacteriostatic water"). On the other, with LR3 IGF-I: There's not much to go by in terms of proper reconstitution & administration in humans: it's usually dissolved in 0.9% NaCl for an isotonic solution appropriate for intravenous use. Where bacteria are concerned, I suppose it makes sense to use acetic acid as an antimicrobial agent, as LR3 IGF-I is more basic than rhIGF-I (given the placement of an Arg at residue 3) - but acetic acid does deaminate peptides at high concentrations. I'm not sure it's ever been compared/contrasted vs. benzyl alcohol in an isotonic solution with a comparable peptide to LR3.

If I were using LR3, I wouldn't be reconstituting days' worth at a time. I'd be reconstituting and administering frequently and probably not making multiple use of a vial. This would dispose with the probability of bacterial contamination arising, and forestall the degradation of the unstable peptide contents. At least in theory.

 

[graciebjj]

I don't know that it matters. Perhaps @PeterBond can shed some light on this question better. I suspect it's mostly irrelevant minutae, whether dissolved in 0.9% acetic acid vs. 0.9% benzyl alcohol. Sterile water will not meaningfully degrade LR3.

On the one hand, rhIGF-I (e.g., Increlex) is reconstituted for subcutaneous administration in 0.9% benzyl alcohol ("bacteriostatic water"). On the other, with LR3 IGF-I: There's not much to go by in terms of proper reconstitution & administration in humans: it's usually dissolved in 0.9% NaCl for an isotonic solution appropriate for intravenous use. Where bacteria are concerned, I suppose it makes sense to use acetic acid as an antimicrobial agent, as LR3 IGF-I is more basic than rhIGF-I (given the placement of an Arg at residue 3) - but acetic acid does deaminate peptides at high concentrations. I'm not sure it's ever been compared/contrasted vs. benzyl alcohol in an isotonic solution with a comparable peptide to LR3.

If I were using LR3, I wouldn't be reconstituting days' worth at a time. I'd be reconstituting and administering frequently and probably not making multiple use of a vial. This would dispose with the probability of bacterial contamination arising, and forestall the degradation of the unstable peptide contents. At least in theory.

Thank you for your input. I think the argument for Acetic Acid was based around maintaining "potency" of the LR3, especially when using a 1mg vial over the course of many days, I imagine bacteria isn't a huge concern. Perhaps the simplest advice would be to use LR3 in 0.1mg vial preparations rather than the 1mg common variety.

 

[Type-IIx]

Thank you for your input. I think the argument for Acetic Acid was based around maintaining "potency" of the LR3, especially when using a 1mg vial over the course of many days, I imagine bacteria isn't a huge concern. Perhaps the simplest advice would be to use LR3 in 0.1mg vial preparations rather than the 1mg common variety.

I apologize if I was unclear: deamination causes potency loss. Sterile water maintains potency (does not deaminate the peptide), while benzyl alcohol vs. acetic acid may cause some deamination (at high concentrations). These agents are used as antimicrobial agents. Now benzyl alcohol is known to induce minimal destabilizing influences on peptides by generally not inducing significant hydrophobic interactions with peptides (i.e., aggregation), provide some stability against agitation, incubation, etc. But perhaps acetic acid interacts better with the more basic LR3.

Theoretically (assuming no bacteria in the vial introduced by the manufacturer), one could simply use sterile water if subcutaneous administration is to be used, and only use the vial once (i.e., draw out the entire contents into one syringe). Of course, there are instances of, e.g., compounding pharmacies, introducing bacteria (whereas the assumption would generally be that multiple use of a vial introduces such).

Practically, I think there's unlikely a significant difference between a 0.9% acetic acid vs. 0.9% benzyl alcohol solution.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Some forums will claim IGF-1 LR3 is hyped up and useless, or at best a GDA; I will say, I didn't notice much from it, until I got 1mg from Sciroxx given to me for free, since one of my orders was so screwed up. Sciroxx is based in Israel, and apparently has access to facilities that can produce pharm-grade stuff. The owner at the time, who went by "Karl," had a very good relationship we me after doing business over the years. So when he screwed up a big order of mine, I told him to throw me some of his LR3 to try, which he was selling fog $200 per 1mg. I literally looked insane, had amazing with pumps, vascularity, and was very lean, only taking a mere 20mcg a day. I never saw that shit again from any other lab.

And people keep talking about how Increlex is so expensive; well for one, pharmacies love to rape everyone with overpriced shit, and two, the among in the vials are like 10mg per...the UGLs actually cost more when you do the math.

 

[hghlover]

Would adding legit Igf lr3 in conjunction with hgh be solid for injury recovery?

Also, did anyone try igf lr3 from purepeptides? Any good?

 

[hghlover]

Some forums will claim IGF-1 LR3 is hyped up and useless, or at best a GDA; I will say, I didn't notice much from it, until I got 1mg from Sciroxx given to me for free, since one of my orders was so screwed up. Sciroxx is based in Israel, and apparently has access to facilities that can produce pharm-grade stuff. The owner at the time, who went by "Karl," had a very good relationship we me after doing business over the years. So when he screwed up a big order of mine, I told him to throw me some of his LR3 to try, which he was selling fog $200 per 1mg. I literally looked insane, had amazing with pumps, vascularity, and was very lean, only taking a mere 20mcg a day. I never saw that shit again from any other lab.

And people keep talking about how Increlex is so expensive; well for one, pharmacies love to rape everyone with overpriced shit, and two, the among in the vials are like 10mg per...the UGLs actually cost more when you do the math.

Did you actually gain any real muscle, shed fat or see enhanced recovery? Or was it just a huge temporary pump?

 

[Gigantic]

Did you actually gain any real muscle, shed fat or see enhanced recovery? Or was it just a huge temporary pump?

This is what I want to know. I already want some…but we will see.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

The pumps were noticeable for sure, which is why the guys from Steroid.com forums say it's best a GDA. The fat loss seemed to be from it, but again, I wasn't just on LR3, i was taking var and tren lol. Did I gain new tissue? Probably not, and even if I did, no way to know because of other gear.

Now here's the thing: I got it for free; and I certainly wouldn't pay 200 per bottle just to look like how I did; even if it did something, it wouldn't be worth it.

The most notable gains will always be gear over peptides...always. It's better to spend your money on anabolics and food. But I see no harm is buying LR3 bottle and trying it out... thing is, forums say take 50-100mcg bilaterally or something crazy.. I did the Dave Palumbo protocol of 10-20mcg ED for 4 weeks, then off.

The issue with all these peptides, is that even if they do something, they are subtle changes; so unless you run them on their own, with some test only, you wouldn't be able to isolate their effects.

I've been on 4iu of GH for 7 months straight now, and the only reason why I'm not going to quit it (as I wanted to) was because @Type-IIx pointed out in another thread that GH does actually tap into stubborn fat stores, so it makes 100% sense for me to keep taking it while I'm cutting, otherwise I would drop it completely. And the kits I get are 70 bux, compared to what others paying 2x that.

I don't think LR3 or any of these peptides are truly worth it to achieve a decent body; these things are for those top pros who are maxed out and nice the that "icing on the cake" because at that level, every detail matters, and can cost you a show.

But if you guys have money, do whatever you want lol.

 

[Type-IIx]

LR3 IGF-I & rhIGF-I are comparable in terms of effects on muscle anabolism: they act primarily to augment muscle protein synthesis and reduce muscle protein breakdown (neither affect muscle contractile properties, mass, force capacity, nor specific force).

As to use case, these serve to increase muscle cell proliferation & differentiation, and can act as a "plateau buster" for those who have reached the limit of the pool of their myofibers.

These both differ from GH (primarily affects growth & metabolism by acting as a dual effector with liver-secreted IGF-I) and insulin (most potent anabolic hormone; but potently suppresses fat oxidation; anabolic primarily to glycogen stores; has a plethora of misunderstood risks including cardiovascular [e.g., increases VLDL synthesis in liver] and insulin toxicity/resistance [e.g., impaired signal transduction due to receptor dysfunction]).

LR3 differs from rhIGF-I primarily by its not binding the IGFBPs.

The 6 IGFBPs, which differentially act by either extending the half-life of the IGFs and by either potentiating or inhibiting binding of the IGFs to their receptors, have different interactions with rhIGF-I vs. LR3 IGF-I.

For example, in human skeletal muscle, both rhIGF-I & LR3 IGF-I serve to increase IGFBP-3 secretion equipotently; and IGFBP-3 decreases IGF-I bioavailability (with theoretically no effect on LR3, unlike rhIGF-I - but do consider other intramuscular IGF isoforms, e.g., MGF & IGF-IEa) & rhIGF-I reduces IGFBP-4 (i.e., fragments IGFBP-4 by increasing the activity of its protease) whereas LR3 increases IGFBP-4.

I write this post to illustrate that most are not fairly able to define the rational objectives, risks, and rewards of the drugs they use.

Not to mind wrap their head around what these drugs actually do comprehensively.

These compounds don't necessarily follow a "more is better" rule: e.g., IGF-I/LR3 would seem to best serve a very advanced bodybuilder that has reached the limits of muscle growth; GH serves fat loss, muscle anabolic, "anti-aging" objectives; insulin is a most potent anabolic that is profoundly misunderstood.

These use cases are differentially served by protocol (administration): dose, timing, route, etc.

I would think you should want to know where to begin by rationally defining objectives, risks, and rewards, and matching drug and protocol rationally, before just buying some peptide you hope contains its claimed chemical based on reports that it felt like it gave a full look, etc. After that - what do you do?

Relying on anecdotes and marketing from grey & black market sources seriously seems like the last thing to do, after understanding the compounds.

 

[callisto]

@Type-IIx
What is your opinion on "receptor grade" IGF-1 LR3 and how it is apparently way more potent and actually inducing hyperplasia instead of judt having a nutrient shuttling effect like the "normal/media-grade" LR3? I was told that "receptor grade" was superior because it was made recombinantly with e.coli instead of being chemically synthesized, but I saw jano write something on meso that IGF1 LR3 can only be made recombinantly

 

[Type-IIx]

@Type-IIx
What is your opinion on "receptor grade" IGF-1 LR3 and how it is apparently way more potent and actually inducing hyperplasia instead of judt having a nutrient shuttling effect like the "normal/media-grade" LR3? I was told that "receptor grade" was superior because it was made recombinantly with e.coli instead of being chemically synthesized, but I saw jano write something on meso that IGF1 LR3 can only be made recombinantly

Jano is correct that all LR3 IGF-I is produced recombinantly, and both GroPep's Media Grade & Receptor Grade LR3 IGF-I is produced using the standard E. coli method.

The difference between Receptor Grade & Media Grade products is that the purity of the former is > 95% & the latter is ≥ 95% with the former's HPLC analysis composed of 3 peaks with the main peak > 50% of total area.

That is to say, Receptor Grade is of higher purity.

No LR3 IGF-I preparation is intended for human ingestion. I'd say that the claim that Receptor Grade is "way more potent and actually induc[es] hyperplasia instead of just (sic) having a nutrient shuttling effect" is mere surmise and probably influenced by marketing... nobody has distinguished these with respect to biological activity in humans.

 

[freakyjacked29]

Jano is correct that all LR3 IGF-I is produced recombinantly, and both GroPep's Media Grade & Receptor Grade LR3 IGF-I is produced using the standard E. coli method.

The difference between Receptor Grade & Media Grade products is that the purity of the former is > 95% & the latter is ≥ 95% with the former's HPLC analysis composed of 3 peaks with the main peak > 50% of total area.

That is to say, Receptor Grade is of higher purity.

No LR3 IGF-I preparation is intended for human ingestion. I'd say that the claim that Receptor Grade is "way more potent and actually induc[es] hyperplasia instead of just (sic) having a nutrient shuttling effect" is mere surmise and probably influenced by marketing... nobody has distinguished these with respect to biological activity in humans.

Post workout with metformin r ala 30 minutes post hgh shot the best protocol for nutrient shuffling since we can use insulin pre ? or can we also use insulin with igf1

 

[callisto]

Jano is correct that all LR3 IGF-I is produced recombinantly, and both GroPep's Media Grade & Receptor Grade LR3 IGF-I is produced using the standard E. coli method.

The difference between Receptor Grade & Media Grade products is that the purity of the former is > 95% & the latter is ≥ 95% with the former's HPLC analysis composed of 3 peaks with the main peak > 50% of total area.

That is to say, Receptor Grade is of higher purity.

No LR3 IGF-I preparation is intended for human ingestion. I'd say that the claim that Receptor Grade is "way more potent and actually induc[es] hyperplasia instead of just (sic) having a nutrient shuttling effect" is mere surmise and probably influenced by marketing... nobody has distinguished these with respect to biological activity in humans.

is the qsc lr3 receptor grade?