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
advertise1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
esquel
YMSGIF210x65-Banner
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

Those that use IGF1 LR3 preWO and MGF pwo

Status
Not open for further replies.
So nothing is contrary - to sum up

Thus far, with what has been presented, nothing appears to be contrary to the points I was attempting to make. In fact, they have only validated them. They are:

1. It has been shown that, "in the presence of IGF-1 proliferation stops and those new "cells" are tasked... which means they will no longer proliferate".
Translation - IGF is capable of overriding proliferation. Thus if so, it would be unwise to dose IGF prior to proliferation occurrence.

2. MGF has been shown capable of either proliferation or differentiation. Agreed. "Therefore we want MGF to behave as MGF and not as IGF-1 and do so in autocrine fashion."
How can this be achieved? As Anthony Roberts suggested in the link I provided in another thread, admin MGF Post WO. This would also appear, at least on the surface to coincide - "in the environment where your body creates & utilizes MGF...that is post-weightlifting."

3. MGF and IGF behavior also appears to be governed via the presence or absence of particular compounds, i.e. "Insulin-like growth factor-I can induce proliferation in some environments in the presence of some compounds. In other environments and in the absence of those compounds it promotes differentiation."

Is there anything else that has been shown here that reflects contrary to any of the above assertions? I'm partially beginning to wonder if we are actually saying much of the same thing, with the exception of what I see as a differrent intepretation of Dats statement involving "or IGF-1 masquerading as (pretending to be) peg-MGF". If he is saying what you imply, then there must be a reason contrary to the other suggested protocol provided earlier.

Hopefully we can conclude this and perhaps agree to disagree. Though I'm not exactly sure what we are disagreeing about. :)
 
Last edited:
I agree...I think I broke a mental sweat

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
great stuff there..I am def. going to try this protocol next go around..makes sense.Keep this going:lightbulb:
 
The amount of knowledge you bring to this forum is immeasurable.


x2. 123 thank you for always taking the time to type out such informative posts. You breaking down Dat's thread rocks as hell because its hard for me to understand all this. I am engineer not a doctor. :headbang::headbang::headbang:
 
On the flip side

I took a step back last night. The reason is -- I began to take issue regarding an area of this thread, i.e. my differing interpretation of Dat's comment over plang's. This bothered me. You see, it's one thing to quote someone when their message is clear. However it's another thing to do so when the message in question is capable of multiple interpretations! Thus who am I to say my interpretation is the correct one? Does mine make sense? Sure. But in plang's mind, so did his. Worse, and possibly the most important -- I do not wish to speak one behalf of anyone. I'll never feel comfortable doing so, especially when their meaning creates a controversy as with plang and I.

Thus, I wish to play the devils advocate and properly represent plang's interpretation re: Dat's comment. Yeah, plang's interpretation held validity. So here it goes...

I believe there a valid concern of dosing PEG MGF Post WO. What's the problem? Last night I tried assume Dat's *possible* position, i..e plangs initial interpretation of this comment. For the record, DatBtrue said,

"So on a practical level it actually may be better to avoid administering IGF-1 (or IGF-1 masquerading as peg-MGF) in the environment where your body creates & utilizes MGF...that is post-weightlifting."

Plang interpreted this to mean, besides IGF, do not dose MGF IF it is acting as or its expression is differentiation (IGF) Post WO. Let's run with that and assume that's what Dat meant instead.

It's clear DatBtrue is da secretagogue master! His well known promo is the combo (mod (1-29)/GHRP's). It's been said, Dat has shown that MGF can assume (environment and compound dependant) different expressions. Making matters worse, MGF is simply a spliced variant of IGF. Having said that, many who follow Dat's combo advice, IF they were to admin MGF along side of the combo would negate and or blunt the secretagogues effect, i.e. GH secretion. Yes, the presence of IGF and or MGF in the system will formulate a negative feedback loop on GH secretion. This means (as many do) dosing the famous DatBtrue combo near MGF administration WIILL harm the proposed secretagogue effect, just as IGF would do. However it doesn't stop here, this essentially becomes a double edged sword. Hang with me for a sec. to see what I mean...

Studies have shown that GH by itself does not necessarily produce cell proliferation. Reference: "Growth hormone stimulates the collagen synthesis in human tendon and skeletal muscle without affecting myofibrillar protein synthesis" S. Doessing: Institute of Sports Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Center of Healthy Aging, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark.  

OTH, various forms of muscle loading and induced damage will invoke MGF expression, i.e. cell proliferation. It's also been shown that this, achieved in the form of a WO, combined with GH virtually doubles MGF and IGF output than either GH or muscle loading (a WO) by themselves. While it's common knowledge that GH induces IGF (exercise or not), internal MGF is different. It takes both GH and a WO to achieve the following represented IGF/MGF levels. Note this study as represented in elderly men.

Mechanical Signals, IGF-I Gene Splicing, and Muscle Adaptation
Basic Division of Basic Medical Sciences and Department of Surgery, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London, UK

"One of the other marked growth factor changes associated with aging is the decline in circulating growth hormone (GH) levels, which in old age are only one third of that in our teenage years. Because GH is responsible for inducing IGF-I in the liver, we carried out some experiments (in cooperation with Kjaer et al.; Ref. 15) in which elderly males were given GH or a placebo (15). Some were subjected to a resistance exercise training regime for 5 or 12 wk, and in some groups this was combined with GH therapy. In the latter groups, MGF levels were markedly increased, as was muscle cross-sectional area. This indicates that the primary transcript of the IGF-I gene is probably upregulated by GH so that more is spliced toward MGF as a result of exercise. Interestingly, GH treatment alone resulted in upregulation of IGF-IEa, which is similar to what happens in the liver. GH alone did not produce a marked upregulation of MGF unless combined with exercise. This is in accord with the findings of Thorner et al. (17), who found that MGF is preferentially induced by GH in GH-deficient mice. It appears that to effectively prevent muscle loss in the elderly, the GH deficiency must also be treated (FIGURE 3). Alternatively, MGF could be administered instead of the GH, particularly for elderly people who are initially incapable of exercising. Muscle mass might then be maintained at a reasonable level once they become physically active again."


Be sure to click here to see the graph representation: Mechanical Signals, IGF-I Gene Splicing, and Muscle Adaptation -- Goldspink 20 (4): 232 Figure 3 -- Physiology

From the above, thus far it's evident that GH along with a WO will yield superior MGF/IGF levels. So where does plang's initial take on Dat's possible position come in?

The combo admin'ed Pre or Post WO is introduced. Those who WO will almost certainly utilize the combo at one of these preferred times (Pre/Post). MGF along side of the combo, will not only blunt the GH secretion, but as seen in the above graph, now dwarfs MGF AND IGF levels to boot! It's a one, two punch. GH is blunted and MGF levels dwarfed by possible comparison. There is however a resolve.

If utilizing a secretagogue combo either Pre or Post WO, administration of the combo should be 30-60 minutes prior to administration of either form of MGF.

If utilizing a synthetic GH, admin time (Pre/Post) is irrelevant to an effective admin of either GH or MGF. MGF will not negate or blunt the exo GH admin'ed, nor will the synthetic GH dwarf MGF response.

There are however as shown above, more appropriate dosing schedules that according to data, achieve greater results if adhered to. These are further mitigated via factors re: natural MGF and IGF patterns.

I'll end here with this. I can easily see why Dat would have a concern w/admin'ing a combo adjacent to MGF. It's certain GH along side a WO has the potential to elevate greater MGF and IGF levels than either by themselves. This further presents a valid reason why GH (whether secretagogue or synthetic) should be admin'ed Pre WO, rather than Post -- maintaining a 30/60 min. distance of MGF admin IF a combo was injected prior to.

Hopefully this is a fair analogy and I've presented both sides of Dat's possible, though not probable :D meaning. :)
 
Last edited:
I appreciate the time taken seeing how I was viewing what dat meant....I now have outlined in my head about 3 different protocols I'm going to try out with ghrp/cjc/mgf/igf/peg mgf/gh/slin (not all at once) just like u reiterate with gh...i think changing protocols is key as long as they make reasonable sense (no pwo igf etc)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
bump??

this is some good info going back and forth. Both sides seem like good arguments, but I have a question in regards to timing your carbohydrates. If taken pre workout, it usually is accompanied by sugar, caffiene, creatine, arginine, etc, whatever you like, but sugar for sure.
Now what about the thinking of taking the igf @ 2 or more hours after the exercise?
carb ingestion surrounding like preworkout? Something different?
thanks fellas
-c
 
I appreciate the time taken seeing how I was viewing what dat meant....

Not a problem. ;) Seemed like the right thing to do.

Think it was my mother who told me, "There's always two sides to every argument".

No wonder she never believed me....
 
Now what about the thinking of taking the igf @ 2 or more hours after the exercise?

That would work. As for the carb intake, there are numerous methods of approach, much of which determinant upon your goals.
 
I was just thinking it can't be as simple as gaining/building add carbs w/igf and dieting take carbs out, Is it?. I am not over thinking here, just assuming there is a way to optimize
Pre workout usually accompanies the igf protocol with carbs, and post workout same to help drive everything home whether using slin or not.
Since this window is not really the factor regarding the timing, is there such a thing as optimizing the igf if it is used 2 or more hours after the exercise bout?
or.....can you really not mess it up either way??:confused:
thanks 123
-c
 
Sorry I'm confused exactly what ur asking....u may be very well overthinking it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Since this window is not really the factor regarding the timing, is there such a thing as optimizing the igf if it is used 2 or more hours after the exercise bout?
or.....can you really not mess it up either way??:confused:
thanks 123
-c

Increasing IGF levels (and MGF) as seen in the graph I offered above, was accomplished via both GH and a WO -- and in that order. If that's done, expect IGF levels to be amplified regardless of diet. However as for optimizing and or capitalizing on increased IGF levels, namely its effects, that's an entirely different story! Diet will play a role on the outcome of raised IGF levels. That's because IGF-1 (in part) has some comparable effects to insulin, thus the name - Insulin-like Growth Factor (IGF).

Anyhow, diet aside, along with your goal to amplify/raise IGF and MGF levels greater than the norm, data has shown (I've seen none to the contrary to) that if you dose along side of bodily patterns, basically mimicking patterns or secretion, you can expect a response and acceptance of this to be greater than if you step out of sync.

Thus in a nut shell, I'm suggesting that you dose (no matter what it is, IGF, MGF, GH, etc.) along side of bodily patterns to achive optimal results. If you would like to see additional data regarding this, such as when does the body raise IGF levels, durations of, MGF, etc., just yell.
 
did you hear me..........Oh, I was yelling :):):):)
thanks for the info :lightbulb:
-c
 
I took a step back last night. The reason is -- I began to take issue regarding an area of this thread, i.e. my differing interpretation of Dat's comment over plang's. This bothered me. You see, it's one thing to quote someone when their message is clear. However it's another thing to do so when the message in question is capable of multiple interpretations! Thus who am I to say my interpretation is the correct one? Does mine make sense? Sure. But in plang's mind, so did his. Worse, and possibly the most important -- I do not wish to speak one behalf of anyone. I'll never feel comfortable doing so, especially when their meaning creates a controversy as with plang and I.

Thus, I wish to play the devils advocate and properly represent plang's interpretation re: Dat's comment. Yeah, plang's interpretation held validity. So here it goes...

I believe there a valid concern of dosing PEG MGF Post WO. What's the problem? Last night I tried assume Dat's *possible* position, i..e plangs initial interpretation of this comment. For the record, DatBtrue said,

"So on a practical level it actually may be better to avoid administering IGF-1 (or IGF-1 masquerading as peg-MGF) in the environment where your body creates & utilizes MGF...that is post-weightlifting."

Plang interpreted this to mean, besides IGF, do not dose MGF IF it is acting as or its expression is differentiation (IGF) Post WO. Let's run with that and assume that's what Dat meant instead.

It's clear DatBtrue is da secretagogue master! His well known promo is the combo (mod (1-29)/GHRP's). It's been said, Dat has shown that MGF can assume (environment and compound dependant) different expressions. Making matters worse, MGF is simply a spliced variant of IGF. Having said that, many who follow Dat's combo advice, IF they were to admin MGF along side of the combo would negate and or blunt the secretagogues effect, i.e. GH secretion. Yes, the presence of IGF and or MGF in the system will formulate a negative feedback loop on GH secretion. This means (as many do) dosing the famous DatBtrue combo near MGF administration WIILL harm the proposed secretagogue effect, just as IGF would do. However it doesn't stop here, this essentially becomes a double edged sword. Hang with me for a sec. to see what I mean...

Studies have shown that GH by itself does not necessarily produce cell proliferation. Reference: "Growth hormone stimulates the collagen synthesis in human tendon and skeletal muscle without affecting myofibrillar protein synthesis" S. Doessing: Institute of Sports Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Center of Healthy Aging, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark. ?

OTH, various forms of muscle loading and induced damage will invoke MGF expression, i.e. cell proliferation. It's also been shown that this, achieved in the form of a WO, combined with GH virtually doubles MGF and IGF output than either GH or muscle loading (a WO) by themselves. While it's common knowledge that GH induces IGF (exercise or not), internal MGF is different. It takes both GH and a WO to achieve the following represented IGF/MGF levels. Note this study as represented in elderly men.

Mechanical Signals, IGF-I Gene Splicing, and Muscle Adaptation
Basic Division of Basic Medical Sciences and Department of Surgery, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London, UK

"One of the other marked growth factor changes associated with aging is the decline in circulating growth hormone (GH) levels, which in old age are only one third of that in our teenage years. Because GH is responsible for inducing IGF-I in the liver, we carried out some experiments (in cooperation with Kjaer et al.; Ref. 15) in which elderly males were given GH or a placebo (15). Some were subjected to a resistance exercise training regime for 5 or 12 wk, and in some groups this was combined with GH therapy. In the latter groups, MGF levels were markedly increased, as was muscle cross-sectional area. This indicates that the primary transcript of the IGF-I gene is probably upregulated by GH so that more is spliced toward MGF as a result of exercise. Interestingly, GH treatment alone resulted in upregulation of IGF-IEa, which is similar to what happens in the liver. GH alone did not produce a marked upregulation of MGF unless combined with exercise. This is in accord with the findings of Thorner et al. (17), who found that MGF is preferentially induced by GH in GH-deficient mice. It appears that to effectively prevent muscle loss in the elderly, the GH deficiency must also be treated (FIGURE 3). Alternatively, MGF could be administered instead of the GH, particularly for elderly people who are initially incapable of exercising. Muscle mass might then be maintained at a reasonable level once they become physically active again."


Be sure to click here to see the graph representation: Mechanical Signals, IGF-I Gene Splicing, and Muscle Adaptation -- Goldspink 20 (4): 232 Figure 3 -- Physiology

From the above, thus far it's evident that GH along with a WO will yield superior MGF/IGF levels. So where does plang's initial take on Dat's possible position come in?

The combo admin'ed Pre or Post WO is introduced. Those who WO will almost certainly utilize the combo at one of these preferred times (Pre/Post). MGF along side of the combo, will not only blunt the GH secretion, but as seen in the above graph, now dwarfs MGF AND IGF levels to boot! It's a one, two punch. GH is blunted and MGF levels dwarfed by possible comparison. There is however a resolve.

If utilizing a secretagogue combo either Pre or Post WO, administration of the combo should be 30-60 minutes prior to administration of either form of MGF.

If utilizing a synthetic GH, admin time (Pre/Post) is irrelevant to an effective admin of either GH or MGF. MGF will not negate or blunt the exo GH admin'ed, nor will the synthetic GH dwarf MGF response.

There are however as shown above, more appropriate dosing schedules that according to data, achieve greater results if adhered to. These are further mitigated via factors re: natural MGF and IGF patterns.

I'll end here with this. I can easily see why Dat would have a concern w/admin'ing a combo adjacent to MGF. It's certain GH along side a WO has the potential to elevate greater MGF and IGF levels than either by themselves. This further presents a valid reason why GH (whether secretagogue or synthetic) should be admin'ed Pre WO, rather than Post -- maintaining a 30/60 min. distance of MGF admin IF a combo was injected prior to.

Hopefully this is a fair analogy and I've presented both sides of Dat's possible, though not probable :D meaning. :)

Great post! :)
 
I think a lot of igf-1's magic is that it works whenever u use it to a degree...people used to swear by pwo, than it was morning...than pre workout...along the way quite a few people got results...I've gotten good results with igf-1 pre and mgf pwo w/ cjc and ghrp...could thre be abetted protocol? Maybe...and probably...Dat himself answered "I don't know" in the very first post I referenced..no one knows...to completely refute anecdotal results is foolish..but so is it foolish too to ignore what science says (and unless your going to name names citing u work with top pros and amateurs sounds cheesy)....people still don't agree on the best way to cycle...or when to use gh....but still get results from both....but having intelligent discussions about different protocols, theories and results is what these boards are for....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

  • Big A
    IFBB PRO/NPC JUDGE/Administrator

Forum statistics

Total page views
558,086,461
Threads
135,764
Messages
2,768,782
Members
160,344
Latest member
Punisher13420
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
yourmuscleshop210x131
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