+ 14 DON'T GET EATEN BY THE FALSESAURUS ... Variability in IGF-1 Testing is the name of the game
I've been seeing a whole lot of problems with HGH testing on the board lately. I also notice guys complaining about HGH. Some warranted some not. That 's why I'm writing this. Gather round follow along and get educated. So what does IGF-1 do? What are the Metabolic Actions of IGF-I in Normal Physiology and Diabetes? Glad you asked. Follow the link.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3374394/
Been seeing numbers that are all over the place. So where to begin. Let's take it step by step from the beginning . If your contemplating using HGH the very first thing before you even buy a kit is to get an IGF-1 test while your clean (no juice) to check your baseline. Why you ask? How will you know where your at if you don't even know where you've been. Meaning how can you judge the effect of your HGH in your body if you don't even know what your natural IGF-1 levels were to begin with. This will also help find out if you have a problem to begin with( you score low). Because believe it are not some of you do and don't even know it. What I mean by this is you may have a problem to begin with (example think IGFBP's which are needed to transport IGF-1 and also extend it's half-life. If your low on this your IGF-1 will be low). You use hgh and score lets say 290 on 5 iu. You post up and everyone starts saying the HGH is no good. But what if to begin with your IGF-1 was 120 ng/mL is it still no good? See what I'm getting at (Gorilla-Fit comes to mind when I write this). Those who have been here a while know what I'm talking about.
Next what is the protocol for testing? For IGF-1 run 6 days of dosing then test on the 7th day 24hrs after last injection. For HGH serum if using 6 iu or less test 3.5-4 hrs after injection. For higher dose test at 4.5 hrs. (But keep in mind this is the mean) How do I know? This is based on these 2 studies.
"The median tmax following dosing with the needle and syringe was 4.5 hours on 9 iu(1)"
1. https://bmcclinpharma.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6904-7-10
2 https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/endocrj1993/46/4/46_4_605/_pdf/-cha...
We have guys from all over the world posting up bloods done by numerous testing methods and equipment. So lets look at some of the problems with IGF-1 testing. There are known Interferences in IGF-1 Immunoassay. As an example "There are several immunoassays available for IGF1 determination. Since majority (>90%) of IGF1 circulates as a ternary complex bound to its principal carrier/binding protein, IGF binding protein 3 (IGFBP3) or other members of the IGFBP family and acid labile subunit (ALS), the assay methodology used to quantitate IGF1 has to dissociate IGF1 from IGFBPs prior to quantitation. IGFBPs are known to be a source of interference in immunoassays interference from residual IGFBPs can yield falsely low or high results depending on whether the assay format is competitive or immunometric (1a)(2a). Ok so there was a problem with IGFBPs not unbinding from IGF-1 so it could be read. They came up with a fix for that but it still isn't perfect. Just remember and I quote from a study "Despite advances in our knowledge and understanding of the mechanisms of interference in immunoassays, there is no single procedure that can rule out all interferences."
Next problem.....standardization. (remember the problem with testosterone testing where low and high values of the reference range were all over the place between different tests and they only went to 1500 ng/dl.)Well they are trying to fix IGF-1. "A universal calibrator is crucial for assay standardization. A recent consensus statement on the evaluation and standardization of IGF-I assays recommends the IS 02/254 World Health Organization reference standard, a >97%-pure recombinant standard that has been well characterized by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (2)." So what does all that mean? It means that the medical community knows there's a problem and are trying to use a standard calibrator for the different machines but there are other issues. Another challenge with IGF-1 immunoassays is the poor correlation among various methods, which is likely due to differential cross-reactivity of the proprietary reagent antibodies with IGF-1(3).
Ok so the meat and potatoes of all this. You can not compared IGF-1 scores between different testing methods and equipment. There are 6 major testing system in use through out the world (there are others but the majority of tests are done on the 6). Here in the US Labcorp uses ISYS. Quest uses LC/MS so it is not in this discussion (it's more accurate but not a immunoassay or biochemical test). In talking with Dacky he said in the UK where he gets his testing they use Diasoran (Liaison) XL/CLIA Immunoassay and the Maglumi/ECLIA Immunoassay.
Follow this link: https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/8/2844/3819477
Scroll down to RESULTS Variability of individual IGF-I SDS values according to the IGF-I assay. Notice the difference between the SDS scores on the same blood samples tested on the different testing equipment. They are all over the place and most dramatically so. That my fellow bros is the problem with IGF-1 testing. There is no standard reference range between tests. Some tests read higher some read lower on the same sample. Open this link and go WTF. SDS is different between testing equipment on the same sample and this is the part most are not getting. It's in the statistics. That 300 with an SDS of +4 means something totally different than 300 with an SDS of +2. Understand that SDS is based on the reference ranges of the test.
https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/94752456/jc.2017-00202f1.tif https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/94752461/jc.2017-00202f3.tif
That"s with out even going into other factors when comparing pure numbers such as age, diet, supplement status (especially steroids), diabetes, kidney and liver problems. Last of course we can't leave out genetics. All come into play. IGF-1 is very complex and has a shit ton of variables that most don't even look at. It's not I put x iu in and I'll get XXX ng/ml result. Studies show that it's as varied as the day is long.
Ok like always let me know what you think and post up. Lets get a conversation going.
Don't forget Dacky's trying to get data on this and if you can help out give please give him a holler. link below.
https://www.eroids.com/forum/general/general-talk/igf-1-testing-experime...
If you want to see how this varies go to this IGF-1 calculator that measures the SDS on different machines for a given IGF-1 value based on age and gender.
http://ticemed_sa.upmc.fr/sd_score/gestion_site/index_en.php
Clinical assays for quantitation of insulin-like-growth-factor-1 (IGF1)
1a. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25937392
Are Mass Spectrometry Based Assays for IGF-1 Worth It?
2a. https://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/articles/2016/january/are-mass-spe...
Classification of Patients With GH Disorders May Vary According to the IGF-I Assay
3. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/8/2844/3819477
Reference Values for IGF-I Serum Concentrations: Comparison of Six Immunoassays
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5054194/
Interferences in Immunoassay
5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1904417/
- Bookmark
- 14
- 0
I know it’s an older thread but I don’t mind bumping it because it’s a ton of good info.
My question would be this, though:
What would be the most accurate protocol when testing? I hear so many back and forths. Some say take a 10iu dose before testing. Some say just test 3hrs past your subq injection.
So can someone tell me the actual correct process of testing your igf1 while using hgh once and for all??
Pin your normal daily dose for at least 2wks and then test IGF. The 10iu dose IM 3.5-4 hours before testing is for GH. That is not as useful as IGF.
I just posted a forum topic on the same thing, wasn’t sure if anyone would respond to this being older or not.
RustyhookerBump...lotta info here
AnonVery helpful to the new hgh user! Hope more and more ppl know how to judge the quality of his hgh!
Thanks for your contribution!
Respect
Toptopshop.org
Give them a vote if you find it helpful.PermalinkThis is great shit thanks for posting this it should be a staple read for anyone starting down the GH path
RustyhookerAnd as we feel a lil more confident in tests...BOOM. Its a bit of a chore just looking at basic testosterone numbers in how folks respond in terms of their conversion factors and are they somewhere in an acceptable range. But the factors on hgh made the shallow end of the pool get deeper. Good to see that theres answers and references to each factor.
Thank you!
Great information. I wish I came across this last Friday . I’m currently waiting for my results . On my blood work . I did a CWP panel, ( Comprehensive Wellness Profile ) as well wanted to check my test and hgh levels . I typically will do the cwp and test levels checked yearly , but I decided to check my hgh level this time . Had I known there’s a protocol As you suggested I definitely would’ve followed it. I usually take my hgh before bed 4ius of sero . So not even sure if it’ll register then . As well , I won’t have a high/ low guide to go off since this was my first time checking it .. either way . I’ll post it on here when I do get the results . But great write up very informative..!
Them some big ol words you got there...
lol nice right up dude, nice work put in.
Great work here MegaT.
I see a lot of "outs" here now for sources that actually do have shitty GH. lol
There are a lot of things that need to be accounted for so we are trying to compare apples to apples. Almost need some type of GH testing template where all of these variables can be entered before posting results so we know all bases have been covered.
We just have to look at the variables Makwa. Shitty hgh will still be shitty hgh. We'll still be able to call a SRC out on it. The whole idea about this write up is to make everyone aware of those variables. I guess the easiest way to look at this is always test in the same assay method. It's even more important now that everyone runs a baseline IGF-1 natural once. Look at the rise you get from exogenous hgh against your base line and the reference range of the test your using.
Thanks MegaT. You’ve summarised here all the amazing research you’ve been doing over the last few months much of it you have passed into me in aid of my own journey of discovery and the current research requests I have out there and referenced here by you and bumped on my thread.
I only hope guys wake up and pay attention here and more care, consideration and thought goes into interpretation of results before jumping to immediate source/lab bashing. +2 brother.
I told you I was going to write something up it just took a while. I had some time and the light bulb just went off today. It's not all the answers but we're getting a better picture of what we suspected. You can't compare IGF-1 raw numbers between different labs and here's the proof. The testing protocol for HGH serum was incorrect and now corrected.
You've contributed a lot to the community Dacky and I for one appreciate it as I'm sure others do. Keep it up.
My head hurts after trying to soak this in. Marked as favorite.
All that aside this is an absolute gem of a post MegaT. Thanks for taking the time brother
What's up CD hows the EBC going?
Took me a bit but some good info. Been talking to Dacky and was trying to track down info on his DHT theory. Always felt there was a flaw in IGF-1 testing. Numbers have just been all over the place. Looked at a ton of medical studies. I also noticed there was a mistake in how we tested HGH serum. I don't remember who started the protocol back in the day but it is wrong. Remember test hgh serum at 3 hrs based on the cool-click study. Well I found that old study recently and Tmax (time to maximum) for hgh serum was 3 hrs. Problem was that was based on a needle-less injection system. What has been overlooked is when they used a needle and syringe it was 4.5 hrs on 9 iu. So that's why I wrote a new protocol.
Unlike testosterone IGF-1 is really complex with 6 different binding proteins and whole host of other things that can affect it.
Excellent post! Well written and documented! A lot of work went into it and the information is helpful! +
Excellent MegaT. Thanks for posting this. Extremely informative
I remember years ago when I was sending sample in for testing, etc......there’s was some great info in regards to SANDOZ OmniTrope and their lawsuit with the FDA to become a “generic” BioSimilar.
I think the bottom line was that HPLC testing according to WHO standards was created and needed to establish their product legitimate rHGH (quantify, quantitative, other proteins, etc) with blood serums secondary as to ONLY show bioavailability, bio activity
So using serums (including IGF1) isn’t always the most accurate method to show “quality” of the rHGH being used as we’ve seen in some bloods posted as you’ve mentioned.
Thx again homie
Exactly Hail. I remember the testing days. Guys tested a lot of product. Just trying to make people realize it's not all about the raw numbers. Those raw numbers can vary depending on the test equipment, age, reference range, gender diet etc. It's about results. That's what I want to know about and lately that has been pretty spotty and lacking.
Ole’ GFit Days! Man he put in some work back then....what you’ve posted here would explain some of his results (age, etc) on top of I firmly believe lots of those “generics” were garbage.
But I think info like you’ve posted here and all the testing, etc in the past really has schooled both members and sources. I think the recent “generics” are waaay better because we are more knowledgeable now
I use to talk quite bit with GFit. Good dude. Him his wife always in the EBC. Placed quite a few times.Yeah he was always a low tester and some guys are. He tested a shit load of HGH on his dime. The black tops,yellow tops, green tops etc. Remember the Hyges when they were good they were real good and when they were bad they were really bad. The shitty kigtropins. Can't forget the Riptropins. They were pretty good.
You got that right we all have learned a lot through the years. Fun times great discussions back then.
https://www.eroids.com/forum/hgh-peptides/rhgh/gorillafits-hgh-test-resu...
I think it was the HYGE Bown Tops that tested really well consistently (there were other color tops)
These (brown tops) were actually produced by BIOHygene in China. A legit BioPharm
https://www.eroids.com/sites/default/files/gearpic/21800/image_178.jpg
https://www.eroids.com/pics/biohygene-rhgh
I used to think all them generics were some type of other peptide
Learned a lot here on eRoids over the years
Thank you for putting in the work to put this all together. I appreciate it.
You got it brother.