The reasoning why Generic GH =/= Pharma

[Mike Arnold]

I'm sorry where were you in 2012-2014?
Not even here.

I respect you but let's try to put testing now vs testing then in perspective and understand those two were the most trusted in the business at the time. In 2016, due to curiosity...I decided to go pharma and from my experience, never looked back..

Back in 2012-2014, there was a lot of crap generic floating around. It was a totally different market back then. These days, you're still going to find some garbage generics, but a lot of it is very good. The difference in the quality of consistency is like night and day. Furthermore, the competition in the generic market in 2012-2014 was miniscule in comparison to today. Back then, there were a small number of manufacturers that every UGL bought from, and if a manufacturer put out a bad batch, the general consensus was like "Oh well, this is just how it goes. Hopefully, it is better next time. Fuckers!".

Today, there is just so much competition trying to gain our business. Any manufacturer that puts out garbage is very quickly going to be out of business. I have literally a dozen manufacturers begging me for business, and I am a research company! I don't even sell GH, but they know I sell a bunch of other lyophilized products, so they ask me anyway (some research companies DO sell GH, which is massively retarded). Back in the day, trying to get a manufacturer to replace a bad batch was like pulling teeth. Good luck. Today, they will gladly replace any product that doesn't test well...because they know we can go right over to their competition, who is just standing at the door, waiting to steal their business.

So, I think that a lot of the discrepancy in opinion regarding pharma and generic GH comes down to the era in which the person was using/purchasing GH. Yes, there is a lot of commentary out there from people stating they noticed a night and day difference between the two, but much of it harkens back to the day when there was a lot of bad generics on the market. Trying to compare the GH market in 2012-2014 to the market in 2025 is like comparing the steroid market from 2005 to the steroid market in 2020. Two completely different things. Buying high quality lyophilized products, GH or otherwise, is very easy today. It doesn't mean a company won't ever get bad stuff, but even if that does happen (which is super rare compared to the previous generation), the manufacturer is almost always going to replace it.

 

[Mike Arnold]

My job is just to educate the public bro (as i know alot of old veterans are reading and know 'truth' when they see it).

There is no difference between all pharm grade, weather saizen/omnitrope/hygetropin/jintropin. They all go through rigorous and strict testing to maintain purity and quality. Some bodybuilders will tell you they might feel a tad bit different on one company compared to other, but its all the same shit.

The same cannot be however said about generics hence me quoting jm425. 191aa in perfect 3d structure is hard to replicate, esp since all the Chinese care about is $$ not your health, tell me then why not one CN producer has 'thought outside of the box' and produced generic IGF?

The problem and i feel with alot of bodybuilders on the net; is alot of 'assumption' based tren-68778-hydra new compound bla bla and they get side-tracked with all the fancy talk, when 'reality does not reinforce the theory behind it' and this is the problem with generics, 'my guy has 5655% over-dosed 10iu' but you inject it, 2-3 days later you have the worlds biggest headache and cannot function.

If you cannot afford it and want the IGF spurt go with generics, if you want health and clean compound go with pharma.

Why we never see generic mecasermin (e.g., Increlex) clones on the market!

Responding to the red bolded statement above: I can tell you why...because I've specifically inquired at the top manufacturer level (and I've also done my own research...because I wanted to make a mecasermin clone). Basically, it comes down to price, not manufacturing difficulty. The Chinese market can easily make IGF-1, just like they can (and do) easily make LR3 and DES. In fact, it is easier to make IGF-1 than GH, but no company is going to want to pay for a Chinese manufacturer to make a mecasermin (e.g., Increlex) clone...because it will cost a small fortune. Before I go any further, let us first look at what Mecasermin (e.g., Increlex) is, as we need to understand exactly what it is in order to understand WHY it is cost-prohibitive, and therefore, why no one sells it.

Mecasermin is a combination of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 in co-equal quantities, but more important to this conversation, is the AMOUNT of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 found in mecasermin. But, before we discuss that, let me briefly address another point. When compared on a mcg per mcg basis, IGF-1 is actually less effective (substantially) than LR3 when used at the doses we see today. When using LR3 at 100 mcg daily, we will see results. Not major results, but minor ones. We will notice a slight increase in fullness (unless insulin is already being used) and, if we check our BG levels, we will notice a slight drop relative to baseline (unless the individual's insulin sensitivity is horrible). On the other hand, we won't notice much of anything using 100 mcg of straight IGF-1. Why? Because IGF-1, when used alone, has an incredibly short active life, nor does it effectively make it's way inside muscle tissue (where we want it). Companies have sold IGF-1 in the past, at doses equivalent to LR3, but because it provides no results, it never caught on.

When mecasermin is prescribed, it is dosed at a range of .04 mcg per kg to .12 mcg per kg, twice daily! That is 8-24 mg of mecasermin daily, which equates to 4-12 mg (4,000-12,000 mcg) of IGF-1 and the same amount of IGFBP-3. That is a massive dose of both IGF-1 and IGFBP-3. Why is IGFBP-3 always added to mecasermin? Because IGFBP-3 acts as both a transporter for IGF-1, and GREATLY extends its duration of action in the body. Without IGFBP-3 being present, the IGF-1 would have nothing to attach to and therefore, no protection. As a result, it would be quickly metabolized and excreted from the body. On top of that, without IGFBP-3 acting a transporter, it wouldn't even make its way into the muscle tissue, where it could then attach to and interact with the IGF-1 receptor.

LR3 doesn't require the IGFBP-3 protein for transport or to extend its active life. And, because it is more effective at lower doses, Chinese manufacturers can sell 1 mg vials for a decent price, after which the UGL/research company can sell it to consumers at a price which is affordable for the average person. This is not the case with a IGF-1& IGFBP-3 combo product rivaling mecasermin. You see, in order to equal the effectiveness of just 100 mcg of LR3, you're going to need a larger dose of IGF-1 in tandem with an equal dose of IGFBP-3. That right there already makes it unfordable for the average consumer. And if you want to rival mecasermin, well, get ready to pay out the ass!

No doubt, mecasermin is super effective. That stuff, especially when using the doses prescribed, will provide immediate and dramatic results, but only a small percentage of the population has enough money to buy it (when its actually around), and even if they do, they aren't able to purchase it in quantities necessary for multi-month use. If they did, I can guarantee it will blow their mind. It will produce FAR better results than GH from a muscle growth standpoint...and it's not even close. Using 20 mg of mecasermin daily will absolutely CRUSH 20 iu of GH...by a million miles, but unless you want to spend a fortune, its never going to happen.

 

[luki7788]

Why we never see generic mecasermin (e.g., Increlex) clones on the market!

Responding to the red bolded statement above: I can tell you why...because I've specifically inquired at the top manufacturer level (and I've also done my own research...because I wanted to make a mecasermin clone). Basically, it comes down to price, not manufacturing difficulty. The Chinese market can easily make IGF-1, just like they can (and do) easily make LR3 and DES. In fact, it is easier to make IGF-1 than GH, but no company is going to want to pay for a Chinese manufacturer to make a mecasermin (e.g., Increlex) clone...because it will cost a small fortune. Before I go any further, let us first look at what Mecasermin (e.g., Increlex) is, as we need to understand exactly what it is in order to understand WHY it is cost-prohibitive, and therefore, why no one sells it.

Mecasermin is a combination of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 in co-equal quantities, but more important to this conversation, is the AMOUNT of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 found in mecasermin. But, before we discuss that, let me briefly address another point. When compared on a mcg per mcg basis, IGF-1 is actually less effective (substantially) than LR3 when used at the doses we see today. When using LR3 at 100 mcg daily, we will see results. Not major results, but minor ones. We will notice a slight increase in fullness (unless insulin is already being used) and, if we check our BG levels, we will notice a slight drop relative to baseline (unless the individual's insulin sensitivity is horrible). On the other hand, we won't notice much of anything using 100 mcg of straight IGF-1. Why? Because IGF-1, when used alone, has an incredibly short active life, nor does it effectively make it's way inside muscle tissue (where we want it). Companies have sold IGF-1 in the past, at doses equivalent to LR3, but because it provides no results, it never caught on.

When mecasermin is prescribed, it is dosed at a range of .04 mcg per kg to .12 mcg per kg, twice daily! That is 8-24 mg of mecasermin daily, which equates to 4-12 mg (4,000-12,000 mcg) of IGF-1 and the same amount of IGFBP-3. That is a massive dose of both IGF-1 and IGFBP-3. Why is IGFBP-3 always added to mecasermin? Because IGFBP-3 acts as both a transporter for IGF-1, and GREATLY extends its duration of action in the body. Without IGFBP-3 being present, the IGF-1 would have nothing to attach to and therefore, no protection. As a result, it would be quickly metabolized and excreted from the body. On top of that, without IGFBP-3 acting a transporter, it wouldn't even make its way into the muscle tissue, where it could then attach to and interact with the IGF-1 receptor.

LR3 doesn't require the IGFBP-3 protein for transport or to extend its active life. And, because it is more effective at lower doses, Chinese manufacturers can sell 1 mg vials for a decent price, after which the UGL/research company can sell it to consumers at a price which is affordable for the average person. This is not the case with a IGF-1& IGFBP-3 combo product rivaling mecasermin. You see, in order to equal the effectiveness of just 100 mcg of LR3, you're going to need a larger dose of IGF-1 in tandem with an equal dose of IGFBP-3. That right there already makes it unfordable for the average consumer. And if you want to rival mecasermin, well, get ready to pay out the ass!

No doubt, mecasermin is super effective. That stuff, especially when using the doses prescribed, will provide immediate and dramatic results, but only a small percentage of the population has enough money to buy it (when its actually around), and even if they do, they aren't able to purchase it in quantities necessary for multi-month use. If they did, I can guarantee it will blow their mind. It will produce FAR better results than GH from a muscle growth standpoint...and it's not even close. Using 20 mg of mecasermin daily will absolutely CRUSH 20 iu of GH...by a million miles, but unless you want to spend a fortune, its never going to happen.

I agree with this 100% - I even wrote an article about it on my forum recently

 

[Mike Arnold]

In one of Chase Irons youtube videos on generic hgh, there was a very interesting comment from someone claiming to be a protein chemist. I copied his response and asked chapgpt to interpret & this was the answer regarding genetic vs pharma:

———-

The comment in your image is from someone claiming to be a protein chemist with over a decade of industry experience and 2 years of analytical chemistry experience. Here’s a breakdown of what they’re saying about generic vs pharmaceutical HGH (human growth hormone)—specifically somatropin:






Summary of the Key Points:



1.


Formulation Process:

• The HGH products being discussed are initially formulated as liquids, then lyophilized (freeze-dried) into powder in vials.
• The final formulation of the buffer (the solution in which the protein is dissolved) affects the stability of the HGH.
• Improper shipping or storage conditions can also impact HGH stability after it’s reconstituted (mixed back into liquid).

2.


Testing of Generic HGH:

• The person performed SDS-PAGE (a lab method for protein sizing) on Chinese generic HGH samples.
• No degradation or aggregation was observed (meaning the proteins looked mostly intact).
• However, there was a 1–3 kDa shift in molecular weight—this suggests a difference in size, possibly due to alternate isoforms or mutations.

Edit: Being that the protein appeared to be "intact" after testing, it would show that Chinese labs are proficient in terms of the "Formulation Process".

3.


Isoforms and Bioactivity:

• The comment references UniProt accession P01241, which relates to somatotropin (HGH).
• There are different isoforms of HGH, and isoforms 2 and 3 may have missense point mutations (amino acid changes).
• While these mutations are thought not to affect bioactivity, there are no formal studies confirming that.
• Pharmaceutical-grade HGH uses isoform P01241-1, which has a canonical molecular weight of 22 kDa.

Edit: Notice that he states "These mutations are thought not to affect bioactivity, there are no formal studies confirming that" Given the fact that he says "the mutations aren't thought to affect bioactivity" and that there aren't going to be formal studies on generic GH from China, we need to look at anecdotal experience. Anecdotal evidence shows that many users can tell no difference in results, including me.

4.

Chinese Generic HGH Findings:

• The generic version tested had a mass of 20 kDa instead of 22 kDa.
• This may indicate:
  • A truncated form
  • An isoform variation
  • Possibly a non-identical sequence

5.


Detection via HPLC:

• HPLC (High-Performance Liquid Chromatography) can detect both the 20 kDa and 22 kDa forms.
• Both would be identified as hGH, but the difference in mass might point to lower purity, altered bioactivity, or manufacturing inconsistency.

Edit: Again, given the fact that innumerable users can tell no difference between the two in terms of results, I think it's a safer bet to assume the difference comes down to purity, not differences in bioactivity.




Interpretation:

• Pharma-grade HGH is highly consistent, using the standard isoform of 22 kDa.
• Chinese generics may contain alternative forms of HGH, such as slightly shorter or modified proteins, likely to save costs or due to looser manufacturing standards.
• These differences could theoretically affect potency, stability, immunogenicity, or effectiveness, even if some isoforms retain bioactivity.
• There is no strong clinical data confirming whether these variants are equally effective or safe.

Translation: "We don't know really know how the difference in weight might affect the end result". So, once again, we should defer to actual user results, bloodwork, etc.




Bottom Line:

• The commenter is highlighting a quality and consistency gap between pharmaceutical-grade and generic (especially Chinese) HGH.
• While both may “work,” the generic version may be inferior or inconsistent at the molecular level.
• This is particularly important if you’re using HGH for clinical, anti-aging, or performance purposes where precise dosing and purity matter.

His conclusion is that "both may work" (i.e., muscle growth, fat loss, etc.). However, we already know that both work, as many users cannot ascertain any significant difference between the two.

Conclusion: The bottom line is that, of the generics he tested, he said there was a difference in weight of 1-3 kDa. He then says this comes down to differences in isoforms, which he says are NOT thought to affect bioactivity!!! If they aren't thought to affect bioactivity...and users see no difference in results with tested generics, why does it really matter? I can understand it making a difference when it comes to clinical research, but for us? No. He basically says the same himself.

 

[null88]

Why we never see generic mecasermin (e.g., Increlex) clones on the market!

Responding to the red bolded statement above: I can tell you why...because I've specifically inquired at the top manufacturer level (and I've also done my own research...because I wanted to make a mecasermin clone). Basically, it comes down to price, not manufacturing difficulty. The Chinese market can easily make IGF-1, just like they can (and do) easily make LR3 and DES. In fact, it is easier to make IGF-1 than GH, but no company is going to want to pay for a Chinese manufacturer to make a mecasermin (e.g., Increlex) clone...because it will cost a small fortune. Before I go any further, let us first look at what Mecasermin (e.g., Increlex) is, as we need to understand exactly what it is in order to understand WHY it is cost-prohibitive, and therefore, why no one sells it.

Mecasermin is a combination of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 in co-equal quantities, but more important to this conversation, is the AMOUNT of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 found in mecasermin. But, before we discuss that, let me briefly address another point. When compared on a mcg per mcg basis, IGF-1 is actually less effective (substantially) than LR3 when used at the doses we see today. When using LR3 at 100 mcg daily, we will see results. Not major results, but minor ones. We will notice a slight increase in fullness (unless insulin is already being used) and, if we check our BG levels, we will notice a slight drop relative to baseline (unless the individual's insulin sensitivity is horrible). On the other hand, we won't notice much of anything using 100 mcg of straight IGF-1. Why? Because IGF-1, when used alone, has an incredibly short active life, nor does it effectively make it's way inside muscle tissue (where we want it). Companies have sold IGF-1 in the past, at doses equivalent to LR3, but because it provides no results, it never caught on.

When mecasermin is prescribed, it is dosed at a range of .04 mcg per kg to .12 mcg per kg, twice daily! That is 8-24 mg of mecasermin daily, which equates to 4-12 mg (4,000-12,000 mcg) of IGF-1 and the same amount of IGFBP-3. That is a massive dose of both IGF-1 and IGFBP-3. Why is IGFBP-3 always added to mecasermin? Because IGFBP-3 acts as both a transporter for IGF-1, and GREATLY extends its duration of action in the body. Without IGFBP-3 being present, the IGF-1 would have nothing to attach to and therefore, no protection. As a result, it would be quickly metabolized and excreted from the body. On top of that, without IGFBP-3 acting a transporter, it wouldn't even make its way into the muscle tissue, where it could then attach to and interact with the IGF-1 receptor.

LR3 doesn't require the IGFBP-3 protein for transport or to extend its active life. And, because it is more effective at lower doses, Chinese manufacturers can sell 1 mg vials for a decent price, after which the UGL/research company can sell it to consumers at a price which is affordable for the average person. This is not the case with a IGF-1& IGFBP-3 combo product rivaling mecasermin. You see, in order to equal the effectiveness of just 100 mcg of LR3, you're going to need a larger dose of IGF-1 in tandem with an equal dose of IGFBP-3. That right there already makes it unfordable for the average consumer. And if you want to rival mecasermin, well, get ready to pay out the ass!

No doubt, mecasermin is super effective. That stuff, especially when using the doses prescribed, will provide immediate and dramatic results, but only a small percentage of the population has enough money to buy it (when its actually around), and even if they do, they aren't able to purchase it in quantities necessary for multi-month use. If they did, I can guarantee it will blow their mind. It will produce FAR better results than GH from a muscle growth standpoint...and it's not even close. Using 20 mg of mecasermin daily will absolutely CRUSH 20 iu of GH...by a million miles, but unless you want to spend a fortune, its never going to happen.

Why does a basic google search tell me Increlex does not contain IGFBP-3

 

[kadafi2]

Why we never see generic mecasermin (e.g., Increlex) clones on the market!

Responding to the red bolded statement above: I can tell you why...because I've specifically inquired at the top manufacturer level (and I've also done my own research...because I wanted to make a mecasermin clone). Basically, it comes down to price, not manufacturing difficulty. The Chinese market can easily make IGF-1, just like they can (and do) easily make LR3 and DES. In fact, it is easier to make IGF-1 than GH, but no company is going to want to pay for a Chinese manufacturer to make a mecasermin (e.g., Increlex) clone...because it will cost a small fortune. Before I go any further, let us first look at what Mecasermin (e.g., Increlex) is, as we need to understand exactly what it is in order to understand WHY it is cost-prohibitive, and therefore, why no one sells it.

Mecasermin is a combination of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 in co-equal quantities, but more important to this conversation, is the AMOUNT of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 found in mecasermin. But, before we discuss that, let me briefly address another point. When compared on a mcg per mcg basis, IGF-1 is actually less effective (substantially) than LR3 when used at the doses we see today. When using LR3 at 100 mcg daily, we will see results. Not major results, but minor ones. We will notice a slight increase in fullness (unless insulin is already being used) and, if we check our BG levels, we will notice a slight drop relative to baseline (unless the individual's insulin sensitivity is horrible). On the other hand, we won't notice much of anything using 100 mcg of straight IGF-1. Why? Because IGF-1, when used alone, has an incredibly short active life, nor does it effectively make it's way inside muscle tissue (where we want it). Companies have sold IGF-1 in the past, at doses equivalent to LR3, but because it provides no results, it never caught on.

When mecasermin is prescribed, it is dosed at a range of .04 mcg per kg to .12 mcg per kg, twice daily! That is 8-24 mg of mecasermin daily, which equates to 4-12 mg (4,000-12,000 mcg) of IGF-1 and the same amount of IGFBP-3. That is a massive dose of both IGF-1 and IGFBP-3. Why is IGFBP-3 always added to mecasermin? Because IGFBP-3 acts as both a transporter for IGF-1, and GREATLY extends its duration of action in the body. Without IGFBP-3 being present, the IGF-1 would have nothing to attach to and therefore, no protection. As a result, it would be quickly metabolized and excreted from the body. On top of that, without IGFBP-3 acting a transporter, it wouldn't even make its way into the muscle tissue, where it could then attach to and interact with the IGF-1 receptor.

LR3 doesn't require the IGFBP-3 protein for transport or to extend its active life. And, because it is more effective at lower doses, Chinese manufacturers can sell 1 mg vials for a decent price, after which the UGL/research company can sell it to consumers at a price which is affordable for the average person. This is not the case with a IGF-1& IGFBP-3 combo product rivaling mecasermin. You see, in order to equal the effectiveness of just 100 mcg of LR3, you're going to need a larger dose of IGF-1 in tandem with an equal dose of IGFBP-3. That right there already makes it unfordable for the average consumer. And if you want to rival mecasermin, well, get ready to pay out the ass!

No doubt, mecasermin is super effective. That stuff, especially when using the doses prescribed, will provide immediate and dramatic results, but only a small percentage of the population has enough money to buy it (when its actually around), and even if they do, they aren't able to purchase it in quantities necessary for multi-month use. If they did, I can guarantee it will blow their mind. It will produce FAR better results than GH from a muscle growth standpoint...and it's not even close. Using 20 mg of mecasermin daily will absolutely CRUSH 20 iu of GH...by a million miles, but unless you want to spend a fortune, its never going to happen.

I agree with this 100% - I even wrote an article about it on my forum recently

Gentlemen, since your level of knowledge is mind-blowing - I will allow myself to ask something that is troubling me. If IGF 1 is better than GH when it comes to muscle growth, why is PEG-MGF so unpopular? The action of IGF 1 is about getting to the receptor, but the real growth factor is its isoforms, such as PEG MGF. If I wrote nonsense, please correct it. Because in theory, injecting directly into the muscle we care about PEG MGF should work better than IGF 1, but it doesn't. Why?

 

[thethinker48]

Courtesy of ChatGPT:

Increlex and mecasermin rinfabate are both used to treat growth disorders, but they are not the same — they differ in formulation, duration of action, and clinical use. Here's a comparison:

Feature	Increlex (mecasermin)	Mecasermin rinfabate (IPLEX)
Generic name	Mecasermin	Mecasermin rinfabate
Components	Recombinant human IGF-1	Recombinant human IGF-1 + IGFBP-3 (Insulin-like Growth Factor Binding Protein 3)
Brand name	Increlex	Iplex (discontinued in U.S.)
Mechanism of action	Direct IGF-1 replacement	IGF-1 + IGFBP-3 complex prolongs IGF-1 half-life and mimics natural physiological binding
Approved indication	Severe primary IGF-1 deficiency in children	Investigational/off-label: ALS, myotonic dystrophy, retinopathy (not FDA-approved for growth disorders)
Duration of action	Shorter half-life (~6 hours)	Longer half-life due to IGFBP-3 binding (~12–18 hours)
Administration	Subcutaneous injection twice daily	Was administered subcutaneously; less frequent due to longer action
Status	FDA-approved and available	Discontinued in the U.S. (since ~2011)

Summary:​

• Increlex (mecasermin) is pure IGF-1 and used primarily to treat children with severe primary IGF-1 deficiency.
• Mecasermin rinfabate (Iplex) is a complex of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3, which stabilizes IGF-1 and was explored for different, mostly non-growth-related conditions (like ALS and muscular dystrophies) but is no longer commercially available in the U.S.

Seems like Insmed stopped making IPLEX per a press release in 09:

Insmed Provides Update on Supply of IPLEX(TM)

RICHMOND, Va., July 27, 2009 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Insmed Inc. (Nasdaq: INSM), a biopharmaceutical company, today announced that, effective immediately, the Company...

investor.insmed.com

"Following the previously announced sale of Insmed's Boulder, Colorado manufacturing facility to Merck & Co., Inc. in March 2009, Insmed no longer has the capability to manufacture IPLEX((TM)), an extremely complicated drug to produce. Moreover, any agreement with a third party to undertake the manufacture of IPLEX((TM)), if it was economically feasible and could be arranged, would not result in production of additional quantities of IPLEX(TM) for at least 12 to 18 months."

Seems like they conserved whatever supply they had for the subjects receiving it for ALS almost 15 years ago

 

[luki7788]

Why does a basic google search tell me Increlex does not contain IGFBP-3

Inclerex does not contain BP3 but is identical to endogenous IGF so it binds to BP3 in almost 99%

 

[thethinker48]

Inclerex does not contain BP3 but is identical to endogenous IGF so it binds to BP3 in almost 99%

I think Mike was also referring to Mecasermin rinfabate in his response which is an almost better formulation due to a longer half life with the added BP3 in the formula

I wonder if anyone ever got to try it in the bodybuilding world

 

[luki7788]

Gentlemen, since your level of knowledge is mind-blowing - I will allow myself to ask something that is troubling me. If IGF 1 is better than GH when it comes to muscle growth, why is PEG-MGF so unpopular? The action of IGF 1 is about getting to the receptor, but the real growth factor is its isoforms, such as PEG MGF. If I wrote nonsense, please correct it. Because in theory, injecting directly into the muscle we care about PEG MGF should work better than IGF 1, but it doesn't. Why?

You are right that PEG-MGF is one of the IGF-1 isoforms and theoretically its effects should be very interesting – especially in the context of local muscle regeneration and adaptation. But at the same time you have correctly noticed that in practice it is rarely used, and when it is the effects are very disappointing. Why?

Theory vs. practice – the problem with PEG-MGF pharmacokinetics
PEG-MGF is a modified form of MGF with an extended half-life (even up to several days). However, this... unfortunately completely kills the point of its existence.
MGF in its natural version works very quickly and very locally, it is secreted immediately after muscle damage and works where it was created, without the need for systemic circulation.
The PEG version circulates in the bloodstream for a long time, but... because of this it does not work locally and does not work when it should. In other words: it does not activate the same regenerative pathways that endogenous MGF activates in response to micro-injuries. Another thing is the lack of in vivo evidence for the strong anabolic effects of PEG-MGF
Most of the data that promotes PEG-MGF as a powerful anabolic agent comes from in vitro studies (e.g. on satellite cell cultures) or on rodents. There is a lack of specific studies in humans, and most user experiences indicate a lack of noticeable effects.

IGF-1 works systemically - and this is its advantage
e.g. LR3 works systemically, has a very long half-life (20-30h) and reaches tissues with a high level of IGF-1 receptors - i.e. previously trained muscles. Additionally, it affects the increase in the transport of amino acids, glucose, mTOR expression, etc.
In practice, it gives a better effect of "overall growth", especially if it is well synchronized with insulin and GH.
IGF-1 works best in an androgenic and insulin environment (i.e. when we have a test, GH, insulin). PEG-MGF - even if it were to work locally - does not have the support of these systems and therefore the effect is poor.

In summary, PEG-MGF would make sense if it could be administered exactly at the moment of muscle damage and only in that place — for example, 5 minutes after the end of an intensive leg workout, injected directly into the thighs. But since it circulates throughout the body for many hours, it does not act in a way similar to endogenous MGF. In practice — PEG-MGF is a marketing product that does not fulfill its theoretical role in real physiological conditions.

 

[kadafi2]

And everything is clear, now I understand. Thank you for the precise - as always - answer Luki.

 

[luki7788]

I think Mike was also referring to Mecasermin rinfabate in his response which is an almost better formulation due to a longer half life with the added BP3 in the formula

I wonder if anyone ever got to try it in the bodybuilding world

I knew a few people who used it instead of Inclrelex because there was this common belief that it was its equivalent. But honestly, no one ran it long enough to really tell if it works the same way. Hardly anyone uses it consistently because the prices are just insane.
One very well-known coach in Europe prescribes it at doses of 3–8 mg per day, which is a perfectly reasonable range — but you’d basically have to be a millionaire to afford that.
As for those claiming they “blew up” on 1 mg/day of Inclrelex, in my opinion, that's mostly placebo effect. That dose is simply not effective. But honestly, it reminds me of the early days of GH — it used to be super expensive and hard to get, so people were taking 2 IU a day and swearing it was magic. Placebo can do wonders.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Why does a basic google search tell me Increlex does not contain IGFBP-3

I should have said mecasermin rinfabate, which is called Iplex. It's the same thing as Increlex, but with IGFBP-3 added for increased effectiveness (I describe the reasons above).

 

[Mike Arnold]

I think Mike was also referring to Mecasermin rinfabate in his response which is an almost better formulation due to a longer half life with the added BP3 in the formula

I wonder if anyone ever got to try it in the bodybuilding world

Yes, I was referring to Mecasermin rinfabate, but I did forget that it was called Iplex and not Increlex. Everyone always refers to prescription IGF-1 as Increlex, so I did so myself without even thinking about it. My mistake, but regardless, all the information I provided regarding the reasons for IGFBP-3's inclusion, as IGF-1 in general, were correct. Without IGFBP-3 being present, IGF-1 is essentially useless.

 

[Mike Arnold]

I think Mike was also referring to Mecasermin rinfabate in his response which is an almost better formulation due to a longer half life with the added BP3 in the formula

I wonder if anyone ever got to try it in the bodybuilding world

It IS a better formulation, no doubt about it. It isn't difficult to produce IGFBP-3, but it's expensive, just like IGF-1. Buying a product that contains both in equal quantities costs quite a bit of money, even when buying it straight from the manufacturer. I asked, so I know.

 

[Bleed]

A few years back I picked up a couple kits of serostims. I checked them against the app and they were legit.

I noticed no difference to a comparable dose of TPs gh at 3iu. Ive seen people say they saw a huge difference and I just didnt see it.

I would test again at 5iu but for the price, I just cant justify it and really dont think the results would be the same.

When people say they switched from generic to pharma and never looked back, the thing I dont see them mention often is the dose. I dont get sides from TPs gh until higher doses and even then it's waking up with numb hands. Even if seros didnt have that side, Id stick with the generics.

What I REALLY don’t get is when people say “I switch from 2iu generics to 2iu pharma and saw a huge difference”

I’m not sure how someone would notice anything at those doses whether it’s good or not lol. And certainly not at a magnitude to say one’s significantly better or not, in my opinion.

 

[Flocci]

A few years back I picked up a couple kits of serostims. I checked them against the app and they were legit.

I noticed no difference to a comparable dose of TPs gh at 3iu. Ive seen people say they saw a huge difference and I just didnt see it.

I would test again at 5iu but for the price, I just cant justify it and really dont think the results would be the same.

When people say they switched from generic to pharma and never looked back, the thing I dont see them mention often is the dose. I dont get sides from TPs gh until higher doses and even then it's waking up with numb hands. Even if seros didnt have that side, Id stick with the generics.

I think thats a good point, do people really compare them to equal doses of each?

do you really think most people would notice anything from just 2iu even if its pharma or a generics though? i would think you'd have to get over 4-5iu to really see much of a response that you can notice on yourself.

i dont have much to add experience wise as ive only ran a few generics, but from what i know, it doesnt make sense that pharma would be any better than generics when we have HPLC testing from janoshik showing generics ofte haven higher purity and same if not lower amount of dimer.

One argument that i could see is the difference in excipients in the hgh that could impact the pharmacodynamics so the peak,onset and AUC and so on of the effects could be impacted and perhaps impact how substantial the effects and side effects are. You hear people saying they hold more and less water on certain brands for example, that might be due to the different amounts of excipients, and things like mannitol that might be higher causing somewhat if a dieuretic effect. But i really dont think the amount of mannitol used in most formulations is enogh to cause any dieuresis. I believe ive heard people say genotropin tends to make people drier for example, but not sure why.

 

[MackCoach]

One you try pharrma you will know what i mean bro. Night and world diff; the 3d look, fat loss etc all non mitigated by that super rannoying thickness of water from generics (gh has water dont get me wrong but not to that extent).

I’d say I have a decent 3 D look

All I run is generics

 

[traininsane11]

I’d say I have a decent 3 D look

All I run is generics

I’m not calling you out or whatever in the slightest but just had to comment on your signature thing at the bottom where it says “I coach. Ifbb pro card guaranteed” that’s a hell of a promise lol I have friends who compete and the only
Way they’d turn pro is if no one else showed up . But if your success rate really is that good then that’s a wild achievement fair play

 

[madg]

I’m not calling you out or whatever in the slightest but just had to comment on your signature thing at the bottom where it says “I coach. Ifbb pro card guaranteed” that’s a hell of a promise lol I have friends who compete and the only
Way they’d turn pro is if no one else showed up . But if your success rate really is that good then that’s a wild achievement fair play

I want buy what makcoach smoking

Dm me please