This is something i think people should really study and then make the decision for themselves. My pause on this is the following....when you have high igf levels and low igfbp3 levels there seems to be a great incidence of cancer. Higher igfbp3 levels are known to be somewhat cancer protective. With growth hormone usage the igf levels go up as do the igfbp3 levels because you are using growth hormone to induce increased levels of both. When you use IGF by itself (the theory is at least) that the IGFBP3 levels stay diminished and your putting yourself into a russian roullette game with cancer....so until more definitive answers come forward ive always personally felt that if you want increased IGF levels stick with the tried and true...GH. If you have a family history of cancer...I really think you could be taking a chance using igf by itself....just my thoughts.
Dante, this is true for igf1. However, igf1-lr3 and igf1-des have very low binding affinity to the binding proteins and high affinity for the igf receptor. Therefore they don't need the binding proteins to control their actions, which is the opposite of standard igf1. In my opinion, since the mechanism is changed the cancer risk may not be there with lr3 or des since skeletal muscle is greedy for igf they should directly attach to receptors and not wreak havoc like "uncontrolled" igf1 in cases of low binding protein 3.
But I have to agree. A gh supp should be used to increase both igf1 and igf1bp3. I personally use MK677 for this. Then the lr3 or des is added as wanted for the extra boost so to say.
To the OP, this isn't about one versus the other. Guys are always looking for that "magic" compound. Well, thats not how this shit works.
1. AAS is king. It's the pie.
2. A gh base supp, this is the frosting.
3. Additional peptides, slin, igf, etc. These are the toppings.
That's a more accurate way of looking at things. Educate yourself instead of looking for the holy grail.
.gif "IP Gear")
