Marcus
New Member
Wow, is that all you noticed, was blood sugar drop? That's nuts
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
TURBOVITAL HYGENE BIOPHARMA Long R3 IGF-1
- Thread starter ProfessorX
- Start date
Anyone here familiar with Patrick Arnold?......and his take on the Analogs (IGF1-LR3) being a waste......not to mention these are research peps not meant for human consumptions, studies on humans are with IGF1.....and Prescription is with IGF1 and not the Analogs (LR3 - DES)
What I had tested was indeed IGF1LR3
The concentration (mcg) or amount is in question because of the type of testing done (AAA)
But is it beneficial compared to IGF1? Is it even beneficial at all?
What I had tested was indeed IGF1LR3
The concentration (mcg) or amount is in question because of the type of testing done (AAA)
But is it beneficial compared to IGF1? Is it even beneficial at all?
Well not gonna notice much in only a few doses. Didn't get to run long enough to get any of the positive effects. I'll give it another go soon enough though.
Patrick Arnold is an Americanorganic chemist known for introducing androstenedione, 1-androstenediol, and methylhexanamine into the dietary supplement market, and for creating the designer steroid tetrahydrogestrinone, also known as THG and "the clear".[1] THG, along with two other anabolic steroids that Patrick Arnold manufactured (norbolethone and desoxymethyltestosterone (DMT)), not banned at the time of their creation, were hard-to-detect drugs at the heart of the BALCO professional sports doping scandal.[2][3] BALCO distributed these worldwide to world-class athletes in a wide variety of sports ranging from track and field to professional baseball and football.
Per Patrick Arnold = "IGF-lr3 is an analog of IGF-1 that has an amino acid removed to not allow it to bind to IGF-1 binding proteins. It was meant for in-vitro studies, it was never meant for humans."
So again:
Studies and Prescriptions for humans use IGF1 (MW 7649) and not the analogs (Des / Long R3) (MW 7365 - MW9111)
https://www.akronbiotech.com/product/igf-1-insulin-like-growth-factor-1-recombinant-human/
https://vicrin.com/ (VICRIN)
Increlex: The Only FDA-approved Treatment Used for Severe Primary IGFD, a Growth Disorder
Mecasermin: Indications, Side Effects, Warnings - Drugs.com
These companies / doctors are not manufacturing or prescribing IGF1LR3 or IGF1DES, But they are using IGF1
Per Patrick Arnold = "IGF-lr3 is an analog of IGF-1 that has an amino acid removed to not allow it to bind to IGF-1 binding proteins. It was meant for in-vitro studies, it was never meant for humans."
So again:
Studies and Prescriptions for humans use IGF1 (MW 7649) and not the analogs (Des / Long R3) (MW 7365 - MW9111)
https://www.akronbiotech.com/product/igf-1-insulin-like-growth-factor-1-recombinant-human/
https://vicrin.com/ (VICRIN)
Increlex: The Only FDA-approved Treatment Used for Severe Primary IGFD, a Growth Disorder
Mecasermin: Indications, Side Effects, Warnings - Drugs.com
These companies / doctors are not manufacturing or prescribing IGF1LR3 or IGF1DES, But they are using IGF1
Marcus
New Member
No no. I mean like crazy pumps or anything. I've heard that this is something that's usually subjectively felt
janoshik
Subscriber
That is incorrect, Sir.
LR3 has ARG for GLU switch on site 3 and 13 amino acids ADDED. (it makes sense on the first look - as the molecular mass of LR3 is bigger than native IGF-1)
Maybe he meant DES? DES has 3 amino acids removed from one end.
Thanks Jano
Seems you're the only with some insight on why the Serostim came back underdosed using AAA and IGF1 info
What was stated was: (Patrick Arnold)
IGF-lr3 is an analog of IGF-1 that has an amino acid removed to not allow it to bind to IGF-1 binding proteins. It was meant for in-vitro studies, it was never meant for humans. Your body uses IGF-1 by allowing IGF-1 to bind to binding protein 3 (IGFBP3) which titrates the IGF-1 and extends the half-life and allows it to deliver IGF-1 to tissue when it needs it."
This was from a podcast interview
What's your thoughts on these Pep Companies not producing IGF1 Vs producing the Analogs
Last edited:
janoshik
Subscriber
Thank you @ProfessorX !
I gotta say, that Mr. Arnold was very wrong in that statement.
First, like I explained LR3 actually has amino acids added, it's DES which lacks 3 amino acids. Even with the lack of the amino acids, DES (and LR3) is not 'not allowed' to bind to the dedicated binding proteins - it's just that the affinity is much lower.
Meant for in-vitro studies and never meant for humans?
Highly subjective - if it works for some sort of an application for human use, does the original intention past the creation of the product disqualify it from such use?
Regarding the part with 'using IGF-1 by binding to binding protein' - I can't but disagree again. Although a non-covalent modification my opinion would be that bound hormone - 100% inactive - will not unbind itself that easily. It certainly does NOT allow to deliver the IGF-1 to tissue when it needs it - that is completely wrong!
There's no such thing as tissue having non-covalent bonds disappear upon request of the tissue - that goes against the fundamentals of hormonal signalization.
The whole point of hormones is to signal stuff to the tissue based on some sort of stimulus, that creates the hormone - if tissue could 'create' free hormone by unbinding it upon the need of the tissue - that would be completely... Oh, well, stupid
It's as if your muscles, after you lift, decided they need more testosterone to stimulate them so they'd break off some testosterone from SHBG.
I hope this parallel helped to explain how absurd that sounds.
The main reason for peptide companies not selling IGF-1 is, imo, the half-life and price.
With the amount one would have to inject to get the same effect as from the analogues it is very possible that it would come off as more expensive. Also, the necessary injection frequency would make it not very user friendly. Achieving stable supraphysiological levels of IGF-1 can probably be achieved easier with usage of HGH.
But that's just my opinion.
I gotta say, that Mr. Arnold was very wrong in that statement.
First, like I explained LR3 actually has amino acids added, it's DES which lacks 3 amino acids. Even with the lack of the amino acids, DES (and LR3) is not 'not allowed' to bind to the dedicated binding proteins - it's just that the affinity is much lower.
Meant for in-vitro studies and never meant for humans?
Highly subjective - if it works for some sort of an application for human use, does the original intention past the creation of the product disqualify it from such use?
Regarding the part with 'using IGF-1 by binding to binding protein' - I can't but disagree again. Although a non-covalent modification my opinion would be that bound hormone - 100% inactive - will not unbind itself that easily. It certainly does NOT allow to deliver the IGF-1 to tissue when it needs it - that is completely wrong!
There's no such thing as tissue having non-covalent bonds disappear upon request of the tissue - that goes against the fundamentals of hormonal signalization.
The whole point of hormones is to signal stuff to the tissue based on some sort of stimulus, that creates the hormone - if tissue could 'create' free hormone by unbinding it upon the need of the tissue - that would be completely... Oh, well, stupid
It's as if your muscles, after you lift, decided they need more testosterone to stimulate them so they'd break off some testosterone from SHBG.
I hope this parallel helped to explain how absurd that sounds.
The main reason for peptide companies not selling IGF-1 is, imo, the half-life and price.
With the amount one would have to inject to get the same effect as from the analogues it is very possible that it would come off as more expensive. Also, the necessary injection frequency would make it not very user friendly. Achieving stable supraphysiological levels of IGF-1 can probably be achieved easier with usage of HGH.
But that's just my opinion.
IGF1 LR3 is also known as Long R3 IGF-1 or Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I Long Arg3. This is a human recombinant, single, non-glycosylated, polypeptide chain containing 83 amino acids and having a molecular weight of 9200.
IGF-I is a single chain polypeptide of 70 amino acid residues cross-linked by three disulfide bridges. The calculated molecular weight is 7649.
mands
IGF-I is a single chain polypeptide of 70 amino acid residues cross-linked by three disulfide bridges. The calculated molecular weight is 7649.
mands
Having something for in vitro use but not clinical use isn't highly subjective. In the case of biologics, like IGF1, the risk of immunogenicity is of high concern is one possible reason as to why this maybe the case.
Ironically enough, that is exactly how testosterone and SHBG work although it's not the tissue itself that determines the time to break the bond. Without SHBG, testosterone would not be able to make it from the testes into general circulation since it's not water soluble. Also, free testosterone only has a half life of roughly 30-100min so SHBG acts as a sort of time release for testosterone.
janoshik
Subscriber
Can't but agree with you, but there might've been misunderstanding - my main point and the problem was the statement that implied that the actions within the target tissue of the hormone can somehow affect the noncovalent bond of the 'carrier protein' and the hormone, when instead it's a function of affinity, concentration and time.
janoshik
Subscriber
Releasing of the hormone from endocrine organ can definitely be affected by feedback loops, which might involve target tissue, but binding plasma proteins are unaffected by those.
Just to be clear
Just to be clear
Right
So let's take GROWTH HORMONE:
Human Growth Hormone 191 - Molecular Weight 22,125
Recombinant Human Growth Hormone 191 amino - Molecular Weight 22,125
Recombinant Human Growth Hormone 192 amino - Molecular Weight 22,256
Recombinant Human Growth Hormone 190 amino - Molecular Weight 21,978
Human Growth Hormone 176 - Molecular Weight 20,270
Only rHGH 191 is used for therapeutic use
IGF1 70 amino - Molecular Weight 7649
IGF1 - LR3 83 amino - Molecular Weight 9111
Increlex and VICRIN are only producing IGF1 for therapeutic use
That's the way I see it anyway....pardon my stupidity
Right,
I believe this is why it is recommended IGF1LR3 used in small doses for a short period
With Synthetic Proteins there is:
Tolarance
Protein Immunogenicity
This refers to met HGH 192 also
janoshik
Subscriber
192 aa HGH is not bioidentical, that's why it's not used.
There is literally no 192 aa HGH around anymore, it's more of a myth.
The reason why 191aa is used the most is that the technology is already there and there's nobody paying for clinical studies for other isoforms (some of which might even be more suitable, for all we know).
Right
That was my point in comparing IGF1 and IGF1LR3 Simlar to the list of Growth Hormones
192 was manufactured (Protropin Somatrem) at one time but was "pulled" because of Protein Immunogenicity (immune response)
Just for the record....this is way over my pay grade.....but I do appreciate all the useful info
janoshik
Subscriber
It's not like I'm using IGF myself, haha
Just interested in good discussion
Really, the immunogenicity with IGF analogues is an interesting topic - but we are limitied to hypothetising. Unless I can get somebody to do my western blots on.
Just interested in good discussion
Really, the immunogenicity with IGF analogues is an interesting topic - but we are limitied to hypothetising. Unless I can get somebody to do my western blots on.
So much conflicting info out there (BroScience)
I've tested a couple products that were indeed IGF1LR3
But....I've decided not to continue using it
Same with HGH....I'm completely off for now
If/when I do decide to return using HGH.....it will be only 1-3ius and not the 10IUs per day you read some do.....I just foresee problems with that....more isn't always better
I really appreciated the info/knowledge Jano
Thanks
I've tested a couple products that were indeed IGF1LR3
But....I've decided not to continue using it
Same with HGH....I'm completely off for now
If/when I do decide to return using HGH.....it will be only 1-3ius and not the 10IUs per day you read some do.....I just foresee problems with that....more isn't always better
I really appreciated the info/knowledge Jano
Thanks
janoshik
Subscriber
I am a proponent of the less drugs the better myself, so I understand completely.
It's a real pleasure talking with you, Sir.
It's a real pleasure talking with you, Sir.
I like this thread, mostly because IGF-1 has always interested me. But, I personally have always wondered where, if any, the advantage might be in running IGF-1 over hGH? Besides the speed in which it "hits", and the changes in half-life (DES, LR3 etc.) are there any advantages over IGF-1 (like Increlex) over straight hGH?
