• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
intex
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
PM-Ace-Labs
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
sunrise2
PHARMAHGH1
kinglab
ganabol2
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
azteca
granabolic1
napsgear-210x65
esquel
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
1-SWEDISH-PEPTIDE-CO
YMSApril21065
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
advertise1
tjk
advertise1
advertise1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

anthony roberts article on igf/mgf vs. GH

joshbarnett

New member
Kilo Klub Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Messages
1,103
Peptides - The Next Frontier in Hypertrophy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Anthony Roberts
Author of Anabolic Steroids - The Ultimate Research Guide and Beyond Steroids; Co-Author with Christian Thibaudeau of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Body Transformation From Both Sides of the Force
Anthony Roberts has been researching anabolic steroids for over a decade and is the author of the new ebook, Beyond Steroids, as well as the reference book, Anabolic Steroids: Ultimate Research Guide. He began his research at the age of seventeen while he was a competitive martial artist, ultimately winning a silver medal in his state martial arts tournament in the black belt division.His firsthand experience in steroids began after he switched sports and began playing rugby, in which he ultimately made two consecutive appearances at the hooker position in the national collegiate all-star games.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anabolic Steroid Books
Anabolics 2006 by William Llewellyn - Regarded as the undisputed mother of all steroid reference manuals by bodybuilders
Anabolic Steroids: The Ultimate Research Guide by Anthony Roberts - Steroid manual written in a straight forward and conversational style that you will understand



Publication Date: August 21, 2006
Discussion of pharmaceutical agents below is presented for information only. Nothing here is meant to take the place of advice from a licensed health care practitioner. Consult a physician before taking any medication.
I have to admit, I was one of the last to jump on the Peptides bandwagon. I just wasn’t impressed by the results people had been talking about over the last few years. Sure, the guys in the IFBB have been getting bigger and bigger as the years have been going by, as have NPC competitors, but I still wasn’t convinced that it was from the hGH (human Growth Hormone, also called "GH"), the insulin, or the IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor). Besides, guys were getting pretty huge before that stuff was readily available, so I wasn’t ready to buy into Growth Factors and Peptides just yet.
I was in my late teens when hGH just started getting really popular, and just started becoming the "must have" drug for contest prep…In fact, even a decade later, most bodybuilders still consider hGH almost a necessity for contest prep, and many use the full spectrum of Growth Factors (Insulin, IGF-1, hGH) virtually year round. But still, from talking to regular bodybuilders, I wasn’t impressed. Most people who I spoke to (who weren’t professional bodybuilders or top amateurs) said that growth factors simply didn’t give them the same results as steroids did. Personally, I didn’t see the rationale behind paying a couple of hundred dollars for something which wouldn’t even produce the same results as a couple dollars worth of testosterone. Well…
I think that’s because a lot of people simply use Growth Factors incorrectly…because properly used, I think that they are highly potent and impressive drugs for both athletics as well as bodybuilding.
In other words, I was wrong. Sort of. See, I think that the reason we’re seeing mixed results from people using Peptides is their doses and dosing protocols. So what I’m going to do here is basically give you an overview of the various peptides on the market, and let you in on the optimal time, dose, and combination I think will allow them to produce the best possible results. Basically, what I’m going to do is tell you about all of the new peptides on the market, and how they are used for maximum results.
Now, to understand how to properly use them, first a brief explanation of how they function naturally may be in order. Natural GH levels are controlled by several stimuli including both neurotransmitters as well as hormones. Increasing your body’s natural GH level is first initiated in the hypothalamus. There, in the hypothalamus, two peptide hormones act to either increase or decrease GH output from the pituitary gland; these hormones are known respectively as somatostatin (SS) and growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH) - and they have opposing effects. Somatostatin acts at the pituitary to decrease hGH output while GHRH acts at the pituitary to increase hGH output. Together these hormones are secreted in pulses to regulate your body’s hGH levels. In this way, your body can either cause the secretion or inhibition of hGH from the pituitary, as necessary.
When there isn’t enough hGH in your body, GHRH acts to initiate the emission of hGH, and when there is too much hGH in the body, somatostatin does the opposite. The latter effect occurs because hGH is subject to a negative feedback loop. When GHRH is released, it causes a hormonal cascade starting with the subsequent secretion of hGH. Once that hGH is released, exerts various metabolic effects…and it triggers the release of IGF-1, which is now known to exert many of the effects previously attributed solely to hGH. (1) IGF-1 is highly anabolic although a large body of contradictory literature exists on the topic of whether hGH is anabolic per se. Regardless, though I personally feel that enough evidence exists to show that Lr3IGF-1 is more potent for building muscle than hGH is (Note: Lr3IGF-1 is 2-3x more potent than regular IGF-1).
Now, with regards to GH as well as IGF-1, after they’re produced and secreted, they then have the ability to circulate back to the hypothalamus as well as the pituitary to initiate somatostatin release. As previously stated, the secretion of somatostatin will complete the negative feedback loop, and decrease hGH release. Although both hGH as well as IGF-1 can do this, and have many other overlapping effects, they seem to be able to produce many divergent effects as well, and individually they would seem to act in both an autocrine and paracrine fashion (meaning they can apparently affect various cells and their neighboring cells without it having to enter the actual cell). This is likely how IGF-1 causes a decrease in body fat, though there are no IGF-1 receptors in fat cells. hGH, on the other hand reduces fat through the hGH receptors found in fat cells. (1) IGF-1, however, is thought to be the primary autocrine/paracrine catalyst in myofiber (muscle) growth, also called "myogenesis" (generation of new muscle tissue).
To understand autocrine/paracrine signaling involved in muscle (myofiber) regeneration and growth, we can point to the various hypertrophic (growth promoting) effects which appear to be totally modulated by IGF-1. When muscle is broken down by training, the destruction of muscle tissue leaves behind something known as "satellite cells". Those satellite cells are small stem cells located within the muscle which are then mobilized by IGF-1 to begin the muscle growth and regeneration process. During this process of regenerating muscle, myoblasts are formed to replace and hypercompensate for damaged/destroyed ones, and then they can either fuse with each other to form totally new myofibers or become incorporated into previously damaged (surviving) myofibers. Ultimately, if more myofibers are created than were destroyed (by training) new muscle growth is experienced.

IGF-I and "myogenesis" during compensatory hypertrophy. Increased loading leads to satellite cell proliferation, differentiation, and fusion. IGF-I has been shown to stimulate these myogeninc processes in skeletal muscles. It is postulated that IGF-I, and/or the loading-sensitive IGF-I isoform Mechano growth factor (MGF), is produced and released by myofibers in response to increased loading or stretch. The increased local concentration of IGF-I (MGF) would then stimulate the myogenic processes needed to drive the hypertrophy response. (Adams J Appl Physiol 93: 1159-1167, 2002; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01264.2001
8750-7587/02 $)
Though IGF-1’s effects on the creation of new muscle tissue are clear and direct, it would appear that hGH probably exerts the majority of its anabolic effects on muscular tissues through its ability to stimulate the secretion of IGF. Although it’s also speculated that there could also be an additional (and direct) effect exerted by hGH on muscle as well, though this has been difficult to prove for scientists.
As we already know, the production of IGF-1 probably occurs when hGH is first released from the pituitary (or injected), then travels to the liver and other muscle tissue where it influences the synthesis and subsequent release of IGF-1. We know that the newly secreted IGF-1 then travels in the blood to the target tissues after being released from the cells that produced it (in the liver, in this case, but also in muscle tissue when you train).
Although all of this seems promising, and I previously had read about the GH/IGF axis, I just hadn’t been a fan of either hGH or IGF-1, because of their relatively high cost, compared to other anabolic compounds. I had also been hearing less than amazing results being reported from some people using IGF (remember, in my estimation, I now think that those people were using it poorly, as regards timing and dosing). I’ve actually been interviewing dozens of bodybuilders and athletes, and trying to figure out what kind of doses and dosing protocol the most successful use of IGF has been. Now that I’ve figured out exactly how to use IGF and other peptides for optimal results, I think that they are really quite remarkable. Just hang on, because I’m getting around to telling you how to use them…But first, I need to go over a bit more about IGF, and how it isn’t only produced in the liver.
This is possibly the most important part about production of IGF-1…all of the production/secretion of it isn’t actually done in the liver. And this last fact brings up an interesting (and very relevant) point about IGF…and that is the idea that it can be locally produced in alternate splices in muscle tissue as a response to training (2). While liver produced IGF-1 has several important systemic (total body) effects, when it is produced locally (in muscle) it has several different physiological functions (but mainly we’re concerned with muscle growth and development, and fat loss).
Lets take a look at what happens when you resistance train, and look at how your body responds hormonally. As you can see from the following chart, both eccentric as well as concentric movements will raise IGF-1 levels, as well as IGF-1 receptor concentration levels, while also lowering levels of some IGF binding proteins like IGFBP-4 (which serves to temporarily deactivate IGF-1, possibly inhibiting its actions):

(Chart from: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 280: E383-E390, 2001; 0193-1849/01)
Also of note is that skeletal muscle IGF-I mRNA and protein _expression both increase during mechanical loading (2), thus indicating that the locally produced IGF-1 is not exactly the same as liver produced IGF…nor is the liver the only source of IGF-I. This is very important to us here. In fact, a review of this evidence makes it highly unlikely that increases in liver produced IGF-I are necessary for hypertrophy and instead, we find a much higher correlation in new muscle mass with locally produced IGF. (3)
This locally produced IGF is extremely likely to cause myogenesis during skeletal muscle hypertrophy by contributing to at least by three important molecular processes:
1. increased satellite cell activity
2. gene transcription
3. protein translation
Each of these processes contributes in a different manner to local and general muscle growth. It is highly likely that IGF-I, through each of these three processes, directly and significantly contributes to hypertrophy. So we can see that once IGF-1 is produced in the muscle, by mechanical stimulation (resistance training) the gene is actually slightly different than liver produced IGF-1…this indicates that the IGF-1 gene can actually be "spliced" into different forms, to produce divergent effects on the hypertrophy response. (4)
So we know that there are different forms of IGF-1, caused by gene splicing, which have now been identified to follow resistance training. Basically, this means that different isoforms (forms) of the IGF-I gene have been shown to be expressed by muscles when subjected to mechanical stimulation. In other words, when you lift weights, varying "versions" of the same basic IGF-1 gene are created out of the IGF-1 which is secreted. This brings us to the dominant isoform of IGF-1 which is expressed primarily during mechanical overload: Mechano Growth Factor, or MGF. (3)
However, before going on, it is important to keep in mind that these isoforms of the human IGF-1 gene (some of which are IGF-1Ea, b, and c) are all very similar to each other and all have the ability to produce slightly different (though important) effects which aid muscle growth.

However, when examining all of these different isoforms, it would seem that the primary growth factor responsible for the hypertrophy process is insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) and MGF, or Mechano Growth Factor (IGF-1Ec). (7) One study even showed it to produce a
Actually, though, even though MGF seems to be the most important isoforms of IGF-1, there are two isoforms which appear very relevant to hypertrophy are: IGF-1Ea (sometimes termed "muscle IGF-1") which is actually similar to the IGF-I produced by the liver, and as already mentioned, IGF-IEc (termed mechano-growth factor and known to bodybuilders and athletes simply as "MGF"). (3) The latter of those two only appears to be produced by damaged, stretched, or loaded muscle tissue (5-7), as a repair/rebuilding mechanism. Although, the actual mechanistic roles of these different isoforms of IGF-1 as regards muscular hypertrophy are still regarded as quite complex and not well understood, IGF-1 (and specifically these isoforms of IGF-1) could actually be the most important contributor to skeletal muscle hypertrophy.
Before I go on to my personal preferences on how to use IGF-1 and MGF, I think I should clearly state that I feel that the combination of those two (or even either one alone) is far superior to the use of hGH, for most purposes. In fact, lately I’ve been getting quite a bit of heat over my recommendations to use a combination of Lr3IGF-1 and MGF in lieu of hGH, and I think that at this point, it’s not too difficult to understand why I consider IGF-1 and MFG to be a very potent combination for muscular growth- far superior to hGH. IGF-1’s superiority to hGh is intuitive at some level, but has also been clearly elucidated clinically as well. In the following graphs taken from a rodent study comparing IGF-1 and hGH, a low dose as well as a high dose of IGF-1 was shown to be more anabolic than hGH. In comparison to hGH, IGF-1 produced an overall greater total protein content within the injected muscle as well as a greater final weight of the that muscle (called the "Tibialis Anterior" or TA) (9):

So, in comparison (in this study), it seems to be the case that IGF-1 would be superior to hGH as an anabolic agent. In some clinical studies, that is not always the case, but in bodybuilders and athletes I’ve spoken to, greater results are often seen with IGF-1 over hGH - and it should be noted that they are often seen more quickly as well. And while an intact insulin and IGF-1 Receptor signaling system is necessary for hGH to produce an anabolic effect (10), an hGH receptor deficiency is not sufficient to stop IGF-1 from being anabolic. (11) This is another reason to believe that when you are using hGH, you’re really just hoping that it produces IGF-1, for an anabolic effect.
There’s also another important reason I favor the use of IGF-1/MGF instead of hGH. Over the past few decades, hGH has developed quite a reputation for taking awhile (often several weeks) for the user to start seeing results. In contrast, IGF-1 often begins to product noticeable results within the first couple of weeks. When talking to people who have used both, I’m finding that the current trend is leaning towards IGF-1 use. At this point I should note that the IGF-1 use that’s most popular (and the kind I would recommend) is always the Lr3IGF-1 version.
Although it’s a fairly new peptide, recent studies drawing the comparison between IGF-1 and MGF have concluded that MGF is even quicker to produce results. (4) Actually, it’s been found in rodent studies to produce both faster and better results with regards to muscle growth, compared to IGF-1. (4)
Now that I think I’ve stated my case for IGF and MGF being used instead of hGH, I’ll tell you how I personally have used them successfully- and where my dosing protocol comes from. I’ve been noticing that the bodybuilders who are getting the best results from both Lr3IGF-1 as well as MGF are using it after workouts. So first of all, my recommendation is to inject them after working out. You’ll be getting better results by using them by injecting at this time because after mechanical loading (weight training with CONcentric and ECCentric loads), your levels of specific IGF-binding proteins (like IGFBP-4 are lower) (12). IGFBP-44 is a protein which binds to IGF-1 and inhibits its anabolic effects. As you can see from the picture below, levels of IGFBP-4 are lower following both concentric as well as eccentric movements, than pre-workout:

Thus, it makes sense that you’ll get better results by injecting when levels of IGFBP-4 are lower than usual. In addition, at this time (right after a workout), IGF-1 levels are high (particularly MGF), and I feel that an additional spike in those levels would aid in the body’s ability to induce myogenesis and therefore hypertrophy. If I’m going to spend the money on IGF-1 and MGF, I’d rather inject them when binding protein levels are lowest, and they can have their maximum effect- and that means injecting them after a workout which contains a stretch component, as well as eccentric and concentric loads.
This is why I recommend shooting MGF immediately post workout, when natural levels of it are already elevated. The addition of extra MGF should push more satellite cells towards the formation of new muscle tissue, and I firmly believe that maximal benefits from this compound won’t be experienced if it’s not used after the muscle has been broken down and overloaded with training. After all, MGF is a repair factor, and I think it’s only logical to conclude that it should be used when muscle repair is going to (hopefully) be taking place anyway.
Next, I recommend using Lr3IGF-1 about an hour later…because at this point, although MGF is still highly elevated, we can still derive a benefit from adding in some IGF-1, which will then be spliced appropriately into the isoforms which are most needed by the body. When we look at both young and old subjects who are resistance trained, we see that the highest MGF levels correspond with the lowest IGF- 1Ea levels (5):

This is why I think that by introducing an excess of MGF into the body, followed by IGF-1 which will then be spliced appropriately, will produce the additional activation of satellite cells, protein translation, and gene transcription will force the body to produce much more new tissue than if MGF or IGF are used at any other point during the day, or in a different sequence.
So how much is being used? Well, in talking with bodybuilders and other athletes, I’m finding that the magic starts with these drugs at about 80-100mcgs, which is injected into the primary muscle trained in the preceding workout- half going into that muscle on one side of the body, the other half going into the mirror image of that muscle on the other side. At this point, adequate protein and carbs need to be ingested, because IGF-1 is only going to be effective when there is adequate protein in the body to build new tissue from.(13)
So those are my full recommendations, and reasons behind them. IGF-1 (especially Lr3IGF-1) and MGF are going to be more effective than hGH, for muscle growth, and if you use them in the way I’ve outlined, you’re going to take advantage of your lowest levels of inhibitory binding proteins (thus allowing the peptides to exert maximal effects), while giving your body the best possible environment to create new muscle tissue from your workouts.
So as I said in the beginning of this article, I wasn’t the first to jump on the peptide bandwagon- but now that I figured out how to use them, they’re becoming an increasingly large (and successful) part of my anabolic intake. If you’re interested in trying them for the first time, or have used them in the past with less than great results…give my protocol a try. You won’t be disappointed.
References:
Are the metabolic effects of GH and IGF-I separable? Mauras N, Haymond MW. Growth Horm IGF Res. 2005 Feb;15(1):19-27
Haddad & Adams. Aging-sensitive cellular and molecular mechanisms associated with skeletal muscle hypertrophy.
Goldspink, G. Research on mechano growth factor: its potential for optimising physical training as well as misuse in doping.
Cheema, et al. Mechanical signals and IGF-I gene splicing in vitro in relation to development of skeletal muscle.
J Cell Physiol. 2005 Jan;202(1):67-75.
Hameed, M. et al. _Expression of IGF-I splice variants in young and old human skeletal muscle after high resistance exercise.
J Physiol. 2003 Feb 15;547(Pt 1):247-54. Epub 2002 Dec 20.
Goldspink, G. Changes in muscle mass and phenotype and the _expression of autocrine and systemic growth factors by muscle in response to stretch and overload. J Anat. 1999 Apr;194 ( Pt 3):323-34. Review
Yang and Goldspink. Different roles of the IGF-I Ec peptide (MGF) and mature IGF-I in myoblast proliferation and differentiation. FEBS Lett. 2002 Jul 3;522(1-3):156-60. Erratum in: FEBS Lett. 2006 May 1;580(10):2530.
Bickel et al. Time course of molecular responses of human skeletal muscle to acute bouts of resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol 98: 482-488, 2005. First published October 1, 2004; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00895.2004
8750-7587/05
Adams and McCue. Localized infusion of IGF-I results in skeletal muscle hypertrophy in rats J Appl Physiol Vol. 84, Issue 5, 1716-1722, May 1998
Intact Insulin and Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I Receptor Signaling Is Required for Growth Hormone Effects on Skeletal Muscle Growth and Function in Vivo. Hyunsook Kim, Elisabeth Barton, Naser Muja, Shoshana Yakar, Patricia Pennisi, and Derek LeRoith
Endocrinology, Apr 2005; 146: 1772 - 1779.
Recombinant Human Insulin-Like Growth Factor I Has Significant Anabolic Effects in Adults with Growth Hormone Receptor Deficiency: Studies on Protein, Glucose, and Lipid Metabolism. Nelly Mauras, Victor Martinez, Annie Rini, and Jaime Guevara-Aguirre J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., Sep 2000; 85: 3036 – 3042
Mechanical load increases muscle IGF-I and androgen receptor mRNA concentrations in humans
Marcas M. Bamman, James R. Shipp, Jie Jiang, Barbara A. Gower, Gary R. Hunter, Ashley Goodman, Charles L. McLafferty, Jr., and Randall J. Urban
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, Mar 2001; 280: E383 - E390
Fryburg DA, Jahn LA, Hill SA, Oliveras DM, Barrett EJ. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor-I enhance human skeletal muscle protein anabolism during hyperaminoacidemia by different mechanisms. J Clin Invest. 96(4):1722-9, 1995
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mgf right after workout then igf 1 hour later...where would insulin be mixed in? i.e. 8iu humalog?
 
Have you seen the full articles? very flawed take everything said with a grain of salt. The guy has figures of nucleus being dontated ito the muscle sacromere as how peptides work lol....
 
joshbarnett said:
mgf right after workout then igf 1 hour later...where would insulin be mixed in? i.e. 8iu humalog?

You can still do your insulin PWO, at the same time as your MGF.
 
you DO NOT need 80-100mcg of igf to start seeing the "magic"
 
wylde always said 30-40mcg is enough. so i can do 30 mcg igf then immediately use 8-10iu humalog? or should i wait 10 minutes before using the humalog? do i shoot the igf in the muscle group worked that day?
 
Interesting article. I don't know though. It's hard to look at much of it objectively with the author having interest the sale of IGF and MGF. I guess for me, there's just nothing there that says to me "I gotta try this". And MGF with IGF-1 at those dosages would not be a lot cheaper than rHGH at all. Add to this, other anecdotal evidence (which is what is presented here) that shows much smaller doses of IGF to be very effective. I'm still not sold. a sentence like:
I’ve actually been interviewing dozens of bodybuilders and athletes, and trying to figure out what kind of doses and dosing protocol the most successful use of IGF has been. Now that I’ve figured out exactly how to use IGF and other peptides for optimal results, I think that they are really quite remarkable. Just hang on, because I’m getting around to telling you how to use them…
throws the whole article into the can for me. What appears to be a treatise on biomechanical and biochemical processes and the chemicals that might aid them, becomes a sales pitch with nothing but anecdotal evidence and an author with a vested interest as the chaser. This IS NOT a slam. Just a point of view and as with all points of view, subject to error. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I make absolutely zero dollars from the sale of either MGF or IGF. I don't get any sort of profit sharing from any of the companies I work for, nor do I own a stake in a company selling any products. My entire income is from writing, and I was paid by the owner of MesoRx to write that article, as it was relevant and timely. Here's the story behind it, however:

The members on Steroid.com have recently asked me to defend my position that IGF and MGF are better than hGH, and the article I wrote on that topic was done (basically) at their request...I chose to release that article to Meso, instead of Steroid.com, however, because it's not the type of article Steroid.com typically pays me for (even though it was primarily written for the membership there). The membership there also have innundated me with requests for outlining my IGF/MGF protocol, and once again, that is the reason I included that in the article. I receive literally dozens and dozens of e-mails every day, and often articles I write (and books, and e-books) are responses to typical questions I'm asked in those e-mails, and on forums in general.

Again, although I use the products from steroid.com's sponsor, I have to admit that I use and endorse products from virtually all of the steroid.com sponsors (I'm on HRT from Oasis Rejuvination).

In fact, I use and endorse products from many sponsors of many boards where I am paid to write (I use Biotest supplements, and I write for T-Nation, I use AG-Guys and I write for Elitefitness, I use Steroid-peptides, and I write for steroid.com). If, however, a sponsor sucked, I wouldn't use their products and wouldn't endorse them. Most of what I use, whether it's supplements or peptides, I receive for free. I haven't paid for steroids for the last 2 years...consider it a fringe benefit of my profession, I suppose.

I hope that the article is seen for what it is (a defence of my position regarding IGF and MGF, how to use them, and why I consider them to be superior to hGH) and not a sales pitch, as I make zero dollars from any sales of either product mentioned in the article, in any way, shape, or form.

Also, the dosing reccomendations are where I have typically heard that the "magic" is.....in other words, people who are using 80-100mcgs of each are reporting much greater gains than people using 40-60mcgs of them.

The other benefit I get from writing an article on peptides is that it was released with a banner ad for 2 of my e-books, and my print book. However, my first e-book for EliteFitness was all about peptides, and writing a good article on IGF and MGF is a great opportunity to sell an e-book about that subject.

So there you have it. My interests are vested, but not in selling IGF and MGF, per se, but rather in defending a position I have taken regarding those peptides vs/ hGH, as well as earning an income for writing the article and hopefully converting that article into sales of my e-book.

Sponsors are very generous to me, but in no way could that be construed as buying my allegiance, or purchasing my integrity. If I made money from selling IGF or peptides, I'd tell you.

I'm very open about whom I work with, and what I receive for compensation. I'm not trying to pull anything here, and I've always laid all of my cards on the table in this regard.
 
I think you misunderstood. I never called your integrity into question. Motives maybe, but not integrity. There is nothing wrong in a free enterprise with selling or in any way promoting yourself or your products.

I am a member here. I feel a respected member as well. I've given you props for your research capabilities which are very good. So I guess I'm saying that I respect you as well, as I do MANY members even beyond those you listed. In fact, many of the guys you mentioned, I consider my friends. But there is nothing personal here... there is no agenda.

I have never, not once, recieved anything for free from any sponsor of this board. I have recieved gifts from members as friends but I've also given as well. I don't have any interest other then the welfare of members. Why do I do this? How do I benefit from this? The reasons I do this are personal and it's not necessary to disclose them here. The benefit is 20lbs of walk-away muscle since January. That's all. So advice I suppose is the benefit because I could not have achieved that on my own.

Now, for the hard part. I just can't except, at this point in time, a statement like "Now that I’ve figured out exactly how to use IGF and other peptides for optimal results, I think that they are really quite remarkable." You can't make this claim. Nobody can. Perhaps you just misworded it. Who knows. But you do have your fingers in a lot of pies in the AAS community as is apparant from your response to my post. Not only that, but you have a personal interest in that the products you sell personally, must be promoted and substantiated by evidence and claim. Which you definitely promote often. Is this ethically wrong? Probably not. You have a living to make so it is what it is. But let's not get confused about exactly what it is. Which is you, maintaining your livelihood.

Again, you've had to have read enough of my stuff to realize that I'm not out to get anyone. I'm just choosing, in this case, to throw a flag on the play. I'm not ready to pick up that flag yet and maybe it doesn't amount to a hill of beans either way. Have you done your research? Undoubtedly. Do you know "exactly how to use IGF and other peptides for optimal results?" No. But not just you. Nobody. Twenty qualified biochemists and endocrinologists would never agree on how to interpret these results. How can you make the claim?

I hope we're just discussing here and not arguing. I think rather than just play 'pitch and catch', you opted for the hail mary on this one.
 
OuchThatHurts said:
I think you misunderstood. I never called your integrity into question. Motives maybe, but not integrity. There is nothing wrong in a free enterprise with selling or in any way promoting yourself or your products.

I am a member here. I feel a respected member as well. I've given you props for your research capabilities which are very good. So I guess I'm saying that I respect you as well, as I do MANY members even beyond those you listed. In fact, many of the guys you mentioned, I consider my friends. But there is nothing personal here... there is no agenda.

I have never, not once, recieved anything for free from any sponsor of this board. I have recieved gifts from members as friends but I've also given as well. I don't have any interest other then the welfare of members. Why do I do this? How do I benefit from this? The reasons I do this are personal and it's not necessary to disclose them here. The benefit is 20lbs of walk-away muscle since January. That's all. So advice I suppose is the benefit because I could not have achieved that on my own.

Now, for the hard part. I just can't except, at this point in time, a statement like "Now that I’ve figured out exactly how to use IGF and other peptides for optimal results, I think that they are really quite remarkable." You can't make this claim. Nobody can. Perhaps you just misworded it. Who knows. But you do have your fingers in a lot of pies in the AAS community as is apparant from your response to my post. Not only that, but you have a personal interest in that the products you sell personally, must be promoted and substantiated by evidence and claim. Which you definitely promote often. Is this ethically wrong? Probably not. You have a living to make so it is what it is. But let's not get confused about exactly what it is. Which is you, maintaining your livelihood.

Again, you've had to have read enough of my stuff to realize that I'm not out to get anyone. I'm just choosing, in this case, to throw a flag on the play. I'm not ready to pick up that flag yet and maybe it doesn't amount to a hill of beans either way. Have you done your research? Undoubtedly. Do you know "exactly how to use IGF and other peptides for optimal results?" No. But not just you. Nobody. Twenty qualified biochemists and endocrinologists would never agree on how to interpret these results. How can you make the claim?

I hope we're just discussing here and not arguing. I think rather than just play 'pitch and catch', you opted for the hail mary on this one.

I think, as I said in the article, that I've figured out the way (based on feedback and interpretation of studies) the best possible guess in this situation, with regards to how to use MGF and IGF together...it's far from a hail mary, in my estimation. Everything I write is the best possible guess with the data and feedback I have available to me- which is pretty extensive.

I should have been more explicit in saying "This is my best possible guess, based on my research + the available data"....science is made up of more theories (Theory of Relativity, etc...) than it is laws....I'm putting out a theory here.

But saying I have a vested interest, in the context you did, seems to imply more than is actually going on...also, knowing the back story behind the writing of the article (that I wrote it primarily as a response to steroid.com threads), would also probably be relevant, as would the fact that I work with many, many companies and sponsors ....but that my position is such that I have the luxury of picking and choosing the best ones to work with...all are relevant facts, as is the fact that to date I have never earned a penny from the sale of anything except for my writing. Seen in this light, saying I have a vested interest is very much overstated.

In this light, one can say that I also have a vested interest in the black market sale of steroids- because if there were no steroids around, then people wouldn't care about what I wrote. I have a vested interest in sports doping scandals as well, because it provides me with more potential buyers of my work. I mean...all of these vested interests do not compromise the quality of my work, as is the implilcation in your post, where you make the claim that I'm simply making a sales pitch with a vested interest (*the clear implication being that I sell the product in question- which is false). I mean...if you say someone is making a sales pitch with a vested interest, the conclusion for most readers is that the person sells the product they are claimed to be pitching, or that they benefit from it's sale in some monetary way....when in truth, I benefit from the sale of peptides in the same way that I benefit from the sale of steroids...it simply provides a market for my work to be more in demand and increase in value. I think...perhaps you didn't mean to say I sold peptides...or am paid to shill them....but when you claim I make a sales pitch for a vested interest, that is the message most people will take from it. That's the part I take issue with....

Again, I'm open about what I do, who pays me, and what I get for free. If there were more to this, I'd be open about that too.
 
I see no reason for you to take issue with anything I've said. If you own a company (a forum board, for instance) or you work for one or are paid by one and that company is DIRECTLY sponsored by companies who sell the products you are claiming to be beneficial and know the correct way to use them... You see where I'm going with this? It's a far cry from benefitting from something as nebulous as "the black market sale of steroids."

I myself own a company. Let's just say for now that I worked for that company (which obviosuly I do). If that company's welfare depended on the sponsorship or capital of an entity that sold a product (i.e. ABC Company Diazepam), wouldn't I be encouraged either personally or financially by promoting that product? After all, the sale of that particular product benefits the company which, in turn, benefits my company, which, of course benefits, you guessed it.

Surely you must understand this. I'm not breaking balls here. So are you retracting your claim that you know "exactly" how to use these products in lieu of something more like "it is my best possible guess that...?"

Even if you choose not to retract that statement, I will still retract any statement I made that directly or indirectly implied that you did not have integrity. In fact, I'll apologize right now for it.
 
OuchThatHurts said:
Surely you must understand this. I'm not breaking balls here. So are you retracting your claim that you know "exactly" how to use these products in lieu of something more like "it is my best possible guess that...?"

Even if you choose not to retract that statement, I will still retract any statement I made that directly or indirectly implied that you did not have integrity. In fact, I'll apologize right now for it.

I feel that my way is the most beneficial way to use them, yes. I believe this is exactly the best way to use them, and until evidence refuting my claims is presented and verified or new data is discovered, I feel that I have analysed the available research and spoken to enough users to claim that my way is the exact best way to use them. The argument that "20 doctors, etc...wouldn't know how to use them in the exact best way" is not really valid as a counter argument. 20 doctors also couldn't put you through a contest prep either, so are we going to claim that Chad Nichols doesn't know the exact best way to do that? The overwhelming evidence is that Nichols knows the exact best way to do contest prep, and the fact that 20 doctors don't, doesn't provide evidence that he doesn't either...I feel that there is also overwhelming evidence to suggest that my methodology for using IGF and MGF is also optimal.

The argument here is that you feel my words overstated the strength of my conclusions, and my argument is that until evidence of facts to the contrary are presented, and in light of the exhaustive amount of researching and interviewing I did, I feel justified in saying I have found the exact best (optimal) way to use those compounds. A counter argument I would consider as being something to make me retract my statements is something that gave me more feedback and date as to another method working better, the reasons behind that, etc...

Also, there are many sponsors of many forums who pay me, who I do not promote or endorse at all, in any way, shape or form. Their number is, in fact, much larger than the number of sponsors I actually endorse. Ergo, my endorsement of a particular company and their products requires much more than their sponsorship of a forum where I get paid.
 
The argument here is that you feel my words overstated the strength of my conclusions, and my argument is that until evidence of facts to the contrary are presented, and in light of the exhaustive amount of researching and interviewing I did, I feel justified in saying I have found the exact best (optimal) way to use those compounds.
Okay, okay, fair enough. I don't have the time to do the research that you have done to confirm or deny empircally, what you claim. All I can do is transliterate a sentence made by you to support what I'm saying from areas where I have done research which are not related but only used here as an illustration.
I’ve actually been interviewing dozens of bodybuilders and athletes, and trying to figure out what kind of doses and dosing protocol the most successful use of IGF has been. Now that I’ve figured out exactly how to use IGF and other peptides for optimal results, I think that they are really quite remarkable.
"I've actually been interviewing dozens of anxiety sufferers and depressives and trying to figure out what kind of doses and treatments would be most successful. Now that I've figured out exactly how to use these meds and treatments for optimal results, I think they are really quite remarkable." (an impossible claim)

...and I can perfectly except "I should have been more explicit in saying "This is my best possible guess, based on my research + the available data" from a previous post, as a retraction of sorts. The point here is that in your non-professional opinion, these methods are sound and exact and until proven otherwise, are correct. Which they very well may be. But you say "until proven otherwise" and I say "until proven at all." Your method would also have to show incontravertible evidence (such as a control group with double blind or randomized testing). Not just some previous research and some interviews. Otherwise, it's all just talk right?

Look, peace brutha, I have to run... I'll check back later tonight. Thanks Tony. Intelligent discussion often results in conclusion and I know I can expect that of you.
 
Last edited:
Mr Roberts,

What were your results using this method/dose versus your results using other methods/dose?
 
Anthony, you say your results from this combo have been amazing. What kind of quantifiable results have you gotten? How much LBM? How many inches? How exactly has it been amazing?
 
Mr Roberts,

I have done far more research than you on this subject and I feel you might find my articles of some interest in your studies. I also have a large client list on my current protocol who can provide you with real world results in addition to my theories.

Please contact me anytime should you care to have a more in-depth and scientific discussion of why my theories continue to work better than your outlined protocol.

Sincerely,

Gavin
 
Here we go again...LOL
 
Last edited:
LOL... No. I think we just got stuck in a loop.

Whenever a person submits a document, particularly one that outlines results of research with conclusions, that person's research is by default criticized. You can do tons of research and even come to what seem like definite conclusions but upon review, the conclusions can be (and usually are) picked apart until they become ambiguous at best and outright false at worst. It is up to the researcher at that point, to defend his findings as vehemently as possible. Any one who has done work in research will understand the amount of frustration this can bring to the poor hapless researcher.

This is just the nature of research and development and even higher learning.

You can't (well I suppose you can try) submit an article without expecting it to fall under criticism. Many a bruised ego (my own included) has resulted from a harsh critique. Too many articles today go unrefuted and false information bleeds out to the public or whomever. There is nothing malicious about being critcal, hypercritical even, of any claim since it is the critique itself that stems the flow of misinformation. As all of you can appreciate, there is plenty of misinformation floating about.

But this system is not without it's flaws. What if you do research and come to a conclusion. Your information is tested and verified and indeed correct. Your research may be for not if any of the following are true:

The thesis is not defended properly.
Harsh criticism renders the conclusions ambiguous.
The researcher lacks the academic credentials for his work to even be considered for review at all. This last one is probably the most difficult to accept but no less true. There is a certain amount of prejudice in academic circles. Make no mistake about that.

I would suspect some (if not many) legitimate scientific facts go completely without notice. Possibly even advancements that would be of great humanitarian import.

Other information is completely unverifiable. Take spirituality for example. It is completely and utterly unverifiable. This doesn't make it true or false. It just can not be scientifically explained in any sense. Yet, unlike the spiritual, something temporal such as a chemical or a horse can be scientifically explained (weight, length, temperature, etc.)

In this particular case (peptides) we have something that can be scientifically explained but, as with most advancements, has not yet been fully been documented. We have here something that to truly document properly would be a massive undertaking. It would make a great topic for thesis for any of you soon-to-be biochemists or endocrinologists (hint, hint).

So finally we come to the researcher/reviewer relationship. Whenever you read an article of publication or journal or whatever make certain you also question it. Is the researcher qualified? Has he/she done research to support the claim? If so, how were the research or experiments conducted? If the article makes references, do the references point to accurate studies? Don't think just because you see a ref. that it automatically becomes true. Do those referenced authors have a financial interest? What is their motivation? What is the motivation of the author?

As you can see, it's not as cut and dry as it seems. Claims can be made by anyone¹. See that? It makes my statement look more credible doesn't it?

1. ThatHurts, Ouch. Post 18. Professionalmuscle.com. 2006
 
Well said bro::ction-sm



OuchThatHurts said:
LOL... No. I think we just got stuck in a loop.

Whenever a person submits a document, particularly one that outlines results of research with conclusions, that person's research is by default criticized. You can do tons of research and even come to what seem like definite conclusions but upon review, the conclusions can be (and usually are) picked apart until they become ambiguous at best and outright false at worst. It is up to the researcher at that point, to defend his findings as vehemently as possible. Any one who has done work in research will understand the amount of frustration this can bring to the poor hapless researcher.

This is just the nature of research and development and even higher learning.

You can't (well I suppose you can try) submit an article without expecting it to fall under criticism. Many a bruised ego (my own included) has resulted from a harsh critique. Too many articles today go unrefuted and false information bleeds out to the public or whomever. There is nothing malicious about being critcal, hypercritical even, of any claim since it is the critique itself that stems the flow of misinformation. As all of you can appreciate, there is plenty of misinformation floating about.

But this system is not without it's flaws. What if you do research and come to a conclusion. Your information is tested and verified and indeed correct. Your research may be for not if any of the following are true:

The thesis is not defended properly.
Harsh criticism renders the conclusions ambiguous.
The researcher lacks the academic credentials for his work to even be considered for review at all. This last one is probably the most difficult to accept but no less true. There is a certain amount of prejudice in academic circles. Make no mistake about that.

I would suspect some (if not many) legitimate scientific facts go completely without notice. Possibly even advancements that would be of great humanitarian import.

Other information is completely unverifiable. Take spirituality for example. It is completely and utterly unverifiable. This doesn't make it true or false. It just can not be scientifically explained in any sense. Yet, unlike the spiritual, something temporal such as a chemical or a horse can be scientifically explained (weight, length, temperature, etc.)

In this particular case (peptides) we have something that can be scientifically explained but, as with most advancements, has not yet been fully been documented. We have here something that to truly document properly would be a massive undertaking. It would make a great topic for thesis for any of you soon-to-be biochemists or endocrinologists (hint, hint).

So finally we come to the researcher/reviewer relationship. Whenever you read an article of publication or journal or whatever make certain you also question it. Is the researcher qualified? Has he/she done research to support the claim? If so, how were the research or experiments conducted? If the article makes references, do the references point to accurate studies? Don't think just because you see a ref. that it automatically becomes true. Do those referenced authors have a financial interest? What is their motivation? What is the motivation of the author?

As you can see, it's not as cut and dry as it seems. Claims can be made by anyone¹. See that? It makes my statement look more credible doesn't it?

1. ThatHurts, Ouch. Post 18. Professionalmuscle.com. 2006
 
I agree. Well said. Obviously another man of science that understands peer review, dissertations, and hypothesis testing.
 

Staff online

  • pesty4077
    Moderator/ Featured Member / Kilo Klub

Forum statistics

Total page views
559,568,114
Threads
136,124
Messages
2,780,252
Members
160,445
Latest member
GFly
NapsGear
HGH Power Store email banner
your-raws
Prowrist straps store banner
infinity
FLASHING-BOTTOM-BANNER-210x131
raws
Savage Labs Store email
Syntherol Site Enhancing Oil Synthol
aqpharma
YMSApril210131
hulabs
ezgif-com-resize-2-1
MA Research Chem store banner
MA Supps Store Banner
volartek
Keytech banner
musclechem
Godbullraw-bottom-banner
Injection Instructions for beginners
Knight Labs store email banner
3
ashp131
YMS-210x131-V02
Back
Top