5millionbucks
New Member
on the supertrops i did 5 iu and got 198 for my igf levels. mauve tops i received bloods recently and my igf was at 271 at 5 iu.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
mauve top update bloodwork
- Thread starter 5millionbucks
- Start date
VaDImadi
Member
We need a lot more info, how long have you been on, what else are you on
Thanks for testing!!
For real. And IMO IGF is the most unreliable test.
Well, unreliable....don't know if I'd call it that.
Known to have a large variance between candidates... Yes.
Two seperate guys do 4ius pd...
One comes back at 220 and one comes back at 399. This was the same kit so it just goes to show the large variance between individuals.
5millionbucks
New Member
yeah I agree 271 is probably high for me. And I have been on gh for almost 4 months before the test. I ran the old elitropin I had 204 for IGF 1 and with the supertrops it was 198; but the mauves gave me 271 which are the highest out of all of them.
The only way to know for sure is to have both guys take Pharma GH. You cannot rely on any generic china GH to be dosed accurately from vial to vial in the same kit.
The issue is, even the same person, can have large swings in IGF, for what appears to be no reason at all.
Even with pharma GH this is true, which is why I personally do not like IGF as a measure of gauging the quality of GH.
For example, when person "A" takes 4iu of Pharma GH(for this example) and IGF comes back 400, then everyone exclaims "it is real, yay" but when person "B" takes that same GH, and it comes back at 150, then it is shit.....The same exact GH...
And then a year goes by, and person "A" retests on a new GH direct from the pharmacy, and tests at 200, on the same dose they tested 400 prior, now what?
I have seen the above scenarios so many times it isn't even funny. In a perfect world, IGF would be a great test. The problem is, there is still a lot of "unknowns" and I have seen otherwise good responders, have bouts of awful IGF conversion, with no real rhyme or reason.
I have talked about this on another thread, but I have personally never scored much over 150 on an IGF test ever, no matter what. I have ran every US Pharmacy GH under the sun(huma, nordi, geno, sero, Omni), which all have come direct from the pharmacy, into my hands, and I respond like total shit in regards to IGF. How is that a reliable test for judging GH's effectiveness? It is a test that relies on conversion. It would be like ignoring "Total testosterone" and only gauging effectiveness of Test E, based on estrogen levels of a person.
Yea, you would need those same people to retest with known good pharma GH, and see what happens to their scores. BUT there is a chance they come back equally as bad.....Then what? Is it the GH? Or is there more going on?
I think there would have to be more going on. I've personally experienced the same swings in IGF on all different brands of GH, and my IGF is never through the roof like the levels some people have. Huma, Geno, Nutropin, Omni, Saizen, Serostim all direct from USA pharmacy. Now I use all Serostim. So the GH itself is never in question as to the quality. I get fantastic results all the time with GH, so I don't really think IGF score is the end all be all to measuring the effectiveness of GH.
I ageee w Serono 100%, IGF is not reliable, cuz the human body doesn’t convert igf equally and I’ve seen for many years in all forums of hgh sponsors people using the Same hgh and results vary from users, you can not rely 100% in each test, there’s many factors, same happens with research done by pharmaceutical before they launch any drug, they test thousand of people and not all have the same results, it’s impossible, but they correct the drug till numbers are somehow equal, but will never be 100% effective, I agree that HPLC is the most accurate test, igf or serum test is not the best way
Agreed, completely. Which makes it fairly unreliable. Just too many variables even within the same person testing.
go to the hgh forum and read
IGF-1 testing is only reliable for those that DO NOT convert exogenous GH to IGF-1 consistently.
It's a very good and reliable test to those users that conversion is a non issue.
mands
It's a very good and reliable test to those users that conversion is a non issue.
mands
I think you are missing my point a bit. At anytime, a good and otherwise consistent convertor can go through a period of POOR conversion. If you happen to test in this period, you will blame the GH.
A test that relies on all these variables, to score well, is not a great to define the quality of a product. What it is good for, is testing how you individually convert known good GH to IGF-1. ie. GH response.
The test by nature was not founded as a mass spec replacement.
Let me ask you a question. We take person "X" and we give him 5iu of Genotropin, from the pharmacy for 1 month. He scores 150. Is the GH bad? Or does he not convert well?
Last edited:
Good point there, I’ve seen this many times, even w pharmagrade.
Now, how can we justify the latest serum test done by some members of some UG hgh that scores 70, 50,
When I see Pharma grade hgh Serum Test are between 20 to 30s, never these high numbers
Do u think some UG hgh are adding some type of additive to their hgh to get these numbers extremely high?
Now, how can we justify the latest serum test done by some members of some UG hgh that scores 70, 50,
When I see Pharma grade hgh Serum Test are between 20 to 30s, never these high numbers
Do u think some UG hgh are adding some type of additive to their hgh to get these numbers extremely high?
