+ 4 My experience and recommendations with IGF1-lr3 protocols
I've been asked numerous times by customers on the preferred protocol for IGF1 usage so figured out it's a good place to give my thought in a nutshell.
There are different approaches, Dave Palumbo for instance created a theory by which only 11mcg a day should be used for long run due t receptor saturation, for my best understanding it has no scientific back up.
Empirically I've seen best results with 50-150 mcg a day while running it 4 weeks on 4 weeks off. The most known protocol is using the IGF1 post workout, or prior the largest meal of the day, however my preferred protocol is actually pre-workout. You must ensure extra supply of EAA and unless on strict diet or keto with Vitargo like carb support. I speculate that it has to do with the peak time of the lr3 which negates best the catabolic effect of intense training, no other compound counter and abolishes cortisol effect better then IGF1. Also note that the half life of the lr3 is very long anyhow, so the exact timing is not critical, but we found that pre-workout injection, especially intra-M helps somehow to the assimilation of the peptide due to the enhanced blood circulation
- Bookmark
- 4
- 0
.
Been running this peptide for around 3 weeks. Also doing multiple other compounds. My own experience has been a little disappointing, haven't felt any hypo or felt really full, tbh its early days. However I will say had work outs and the pumps are very intense. Was doing leg extension and my quads were in pain from the pump.
From which source did you get your igf. I sent you a friend request pls let me know
It’s probably not real man, the real shit hits hard at 50 mcg preworkout as said in OP post. I took it years ago I would do 50 mcg split 25mcg on each side of whatever muscle group I was working and the pumps were debilitating and if I didn’t have carbs you bet your ass I was hypo as a mofo. And mind you this was me loading my syringes in the am throwing them in my gym bag going to work and pinning after work right before I went to the gym. So might want to try another source
Hi guys, where are you getting your igf1 lr3?
- Sciroxx
-
331
-
-
SRC
- 04/06/2026 - 04:57
PermalinkFascinating reading this entire thread. I absolutely agree with what Hail is saying but as the same time like Mak I have experienced real growth running IGF-1 LR3, GH and AAS. And I kept that growth way easier than on a simple cycle - and that was with a PCT before I went on TRT. So it does work but I am inclined to say through some mechanism that we are not sure of as no studies have been done that can possibly confirm it.
Now that said and this is for Karl. Give. You can make rHGH and rIGF-LR3. How hard can it be to make rIGF? We’ve recently had a debate with another HGH source on here who reckons it can be done and of course offered at a price that makes it possible for us folk to afford and for the source/manufacturer to turn a reasonable profit - in other word not Increllex type prices. The other source is looking into it further so I would be interested in your view on this.
I strongly believe and know the effects of lr3, just as you testified yourself,
The difference on growth rate and the hyperplasia you probably experienced which explains the long lasting gains have one source and it's the lr3 and we both know it, it's not an unknown miracle which happened here, it's IGF1-lr3
The lr3 activates the receptors same as endogenous IGF1, and actually has a higher affinity to the receptor while carries much longer half life,
You guys with much respect stick to unproven speculations, while I advocate for proven science,
I say again that I'm willing to participate in any experience, we may take you or any subject, make DEXA tests and see the difference, hell if we have a lab which may test the activation of human muscle fiber I'll finance it
In my work I try not to stick to momental trends, we invested in lr3 version for a reason, and believe in this product.
Having said that tell me the target prices and the dosages and I'll inquire for you
I think you missed the point of my post. I am saying I believe LR3 works and works very well. This is based off my personal experience. But I am saying I agree with Hail’s perspective and points too. I am ok with this and you should be too. We do lack human scientific studies on the mechanism of action, effectiveness and safety of LR3 and as such we all have a responsible decision to make if we decide to use it. I did and would do so again. This is not dissimilar to running Tren.
For rIGF I believe you would need dosages or 8mg to 12mg once to twice per day for this to be effective. As to the price that’s the golden question. On you can tell us what that would be.
Thank you for the clarification,
I'm on the IGF1 subject, and will try to get a descent answer soon,
Your referral to 8 mg or higher dosage in not realistic, it costs 750-1000usd according to Increlex price so may end with 2000usd a day ! ?
Yes that’s the point. Increllex is a crazy expensive but that’s because that’s what big pharma can charge for it given the rare condition it is prescribed to treat. I have no doubt it doesn’t cost anything near that to actually manufacture. So if any UG manufacturer could actually do this for a reasonable price they would likely corner a market for themselves for those wanting to use rIGF-1 “illegitimately”.
It is, the manufacturing if IGF1 costs not much less then IGF1-lr3, u just need 100 times higher dosage for same effect
Ok mate. If it can’t work economically then no point. Thanks for looking into it.
No worries, we don't just give up like this, we keep checking, maybe I may get amount from partners, manufacturing is not for us at the moment, but this is also will be under thorough inquiry
Thanks mate. Yes I believe this really does require some significant investigation. We all know what pharma GH costs to make relative to what big pharma sells it for. So I just wonder what a generic manufacturer could realistically produce IGF-1 and sell it for in the doses (8 to 12mg once to twice per day) needed for it to be effective. Maybe I am barking up the wrong trea here. I’m sure it will cost Loren than LR3 but the question is how much more and if Iran reasonable there is bound to me a market for it. Thanks again
Working my way up to 50mcg starting at 25mcg pre-workout is what I have found to work best also. I haven't tried it IM just subq. After 4wks you can tell it is time to take a break. I also run it in conjunction with HGH which I pin post-workout. I also think it is best to just run it while on cycle. Nothing better than creating the new muscle fibers with IGF and then blowing them up with AAS.
With IGF-1 LR3 you'll get the "insulin like" pumps.........but none of the (for our purposes/hyperplasia) "growth factor."
So, used on a steroid cycle it'll boost gains just as humalog would (IMO).
But...with Actual IGF1 or Recombinant IGF1 (not the Analogs DES or LR3)
Perhaps the most interesting and potent effect IGF has on the human body is its ability to cause hyperplasia, which is an actual splitting of cells.[10] By contrast, hypertrophy is what occurs, for example, to skeletal muscle cells during weight training and steroid use and is simply an increase in the size of the cells.[11] With IGF use, one is able to cause hyperplasia which actually increases the number of muscle cells present in the tissue
Imma comment up here since your (Karl) post is so long, yet eloquent
So that's only one additional ammion acid
Igf-1 LR3 was developed for use in the lab in tissue cultures because the bio-idential igf-1 was not lasting in experiments. rigf-1= 70 amino acids, LR3= 83 amino acid sequence. As a result LR3 works very differently.
Even the molecular weight is tostally different according to SWISS-PROT
We use exogenous rHGH to simulate endogenous HGH
We use exogenous rIGF to simulate endogenous IGF1
Recombinant IGF1 LR3 is not the same protein as Endogenous IGF1
It DOES NOT elevele IGF1 levels in Blood Serum
So IMO......what's the point
We can copy n paste all these eleborate studies about IGF1 LR3
The reality is NONE of the STUDIES have real Human DATA
Anything we "Think we see or feel" when using IGF1 LR3 is purely Anecdotal
Try to understand IGF1-LR3 has a longer half-life because it is a total different protein than IGF1 with different "mechanics"
JINTROLONG (which GenSci owns the rights to) is PEGylated Somatropin
Exact same Molecular Weight, protein number and sequence.....same "mechanics"
IGF1 LR3.....totally different, not the same "mechanics"
WAaaaay too much misinformation promoting IGF1 LR3
Exact same waay as GH Serums was/is being pushed as a HGH quality test
But, someone I know proved that to be totally wrong :))
Maybe research:
IGF-IEc, Mechano Growth Factor that's PEGylated
Or MK-677
This one may actually elevate IGF1 blood Serum
IGF1 LR3 does not elevate IGF1 serum
For Me.....
After watching an interview with Lee Priest and his opinion on these research chems (cancer) and the analytical labs professional opinion about IGF1 and its analogs in Relation to possible cancer......I just choose to no longer use ANY research Chem
http://www.basskilleronline.com/understanding-igf-1-peptide.shtml
And I totally agree brutha
But he does break it down on the structure and "mechanics" (REAL SCIENCE) of IGF1 Vs IGF1LR3
That's what Rich Piana meant about no real IGF1 on the market (research chems/analogs)
Dubai (Camel Crew) looks like they got real IGF1 :))
HailRazor, first let me use this podium to honestly show my appreciation to the great contribution you've brought to eroids over the years with multiple and unique lab tests, thorough investigation on so many topics and your relentless passion and eager to get to the root of such interesting scientific issues and share it with the community. I personally thank you for this as it helped to shade some light on the quality of the products I offer.
- The IGF1 axis/system is identical in all mammals. IGF1 triggers the same receptors and carries the same effect in mice and humans (unlike GH). Pls refer to this scientific experiment - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18567600
Contraction-mediated injury is a major contributing factor to the pathophysiology of muscular dystrophy and therefore therapies that can attenuate this type of injury have clinical relevance. Systemic administration of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) has been shown to improve muscle function in dystrophic mdx mice, an effect associated with a shift towards a more oxidative muscle phenotype and a reduced susceptibility to contraction-mediated damage. The actions of IGF-I in vivo are modulated by IGF binding proteins (IGFBPs), which generally act to inhibit IGF-I signalling. We tested the hypothesis that an analogue of IGF-I (LR IGF-I), which has significantly reduced binding affinity for IGFBPs, would improve the dystrophic pathology by reducing the susceptibility to muscle injury. Dystrophic mdx and wild-type (C57BL/10) mice were administered LR IGF-I continuously ( approximately 1.5 mg kg(-1) day(-1)) via osmotic mini-pump for 4 weeks. Administration of LR IGF-I reduced the susceptibility of extensor digitorum longus, soleus and diaphragm muscles to contraction damage, as evident from lower force deficits after a protocol of lengthening contractions. In contrast to the mechanism of protection conferred by administration of IGF-I, the protection conferred by LR IGF-I was independent of changes in muscle fatigue and oxidative metabolism. This study further indicates that modulation of IGF-I signalling has therapeutic potential for muscular diseases.
You may clearly learn and conclude on the ability of the IGF1-lr to activate receptors on muscle tissue, the IGF1-lr was shown and proven to be superior actually to IGF1 in tis matter
We clearly agree that the IGF1-lr3 is an analogue to IGF1 with a different structure and molecular weight, but unlike the examples you brought and based on the former scientific literature I quoted it's designed to carry the same effect on the receptor, while alter its affinity to the binding proteins in the serum. It's engineered to perform as IGF1 with a longer half life. Regarding your example with 192 AA GH note that 192 AA carries the SAME effect as 191 AA GH. The 192 AA was taken out of usage as it triggers an immune response - the recombinant 192 AA GH carries an extra amino acid (alanine if I remember correctly) which is added by the E. Coli bacteria in the synthesis of any protein. The immune system identifies it as a foreign proteins and in some cases creates anti bodies to it which interferes with any GH effect. I'm not aware to any indication that IGF1-lr3 have similar impact, and there is no reason for this.
You quoted - http://www.basskilleronline.com/understanding-igf-1-peptide.shtml - as your scientific background/proof, well Basskiller is my friend, he has vast knowledge and have contributed allot to the BB community, having said that he's not a scientist and in this article he's never shown any real scientific proof whatsoever, it's some (very advanced) bro science
Your lab which tested the IGF1 simply told you what they should - that the IGF1-lr3 is not approved for human usage by the FDA (yet), but so is the case to many other products athletes are using, trenbolone acetate, Boldenone etc are just few to name.
I challenge you to make an experiment, we may and should do it here. We may get body index of an athlete add to his protocol 100mcg of Somedin and take again data and you'll see sheer noticeable increase in muscle mess with out any special sides, on the contrary, probably his insuin tolerance will be improved
Something definitely has to be occurring with the LR3. I guess I have been attributing it to hyperplasia since with the literature I have read that seems to be primary mechanism we are trying to simulate with the lr3. I have ran plenty of cycles cycles with and without HGH but with the extra addition of LR3 It was a game changer. Putting on nearly 25lbs of mostly lean mass in a cycle at this stage of the game is pretty phenomenal, with the only difference the addition of lr3. Maybe humalog would produce similar results, I don't know I have never used it. No need to if that is the case since the LR3 doesn't have the potential to kill you.
Yea MAK
I think it's more a GH, Insulin combo
I got a great pump when using KARLs IGFLR3......but after getting it tested and speaking with the lab......I won't use any of the analogs anymore......the lab was very specific about these not being for Human use
I would love to see evidence for this claim boss. We've discussed this issue I believe and I'm highly intrigued.
It's very common to see a dramatic increase in lean muscle with the Somedin (IGF1-lr3) within days to weeks, this is a clear empirical fact that many members here may testify about.
IGF1-lr3 was experimented with mice and not humans, it's simply not approved for clinical trials with humans, but with mice it was clearly shown to induce superior effect in any aspect to regular IGF1.
Unlike GH which is unique for human (it's interesting as chimp's GH won't work in human body, but human's GH will have effect in chimp's body), the IGF1 in common to all mammals as have same spectrum of effects.
I don't see how IGF1-lr3 will create pumps somehow but not other effects.
It's the exact same reason we go through soooooo much testing, blood work and lab analysis, for our HGH
We are wanting BIO-IDENTICAL synthetic proteins (recombinant Human Growth Hormone) and Not Analogs
Where this quote is from? and on what scientific documented experiment it's based on ?
For the record....
Your IGF LR3 is legit (I've had it tested)
Your GH is probably the most legit, consistent "no name" "generic" product....
http://www.basskilleronline.com/understanding-igf-1-peptide.shtml
We just disagree on Effectiveness of IGF1 Vs IGF1 LR3
BUT....and this is important......IGF1 is now available through HRT clinics (compounded prescription)
They are not prescribing the ANALOGS......same as why they are not prescribing GH analogs or 192aa Vs 191aa
a great comparison is Jintrolong PEG-rhGH
longer acting but still Somatropin
it is PEGylated.....the structure is still HGH with no added Aminos like IGF-LR3
Sythethic proteins like rHGH or rIGF1 must be bioidentical to justify its effectiveness
In chemistry, a structural analog, also known as a chemical analog or simply an analog, is a compound having a structure similar to that of another compound, but differing from it in respect of a certain component.[1][2][3]
Despite a high chemical similarity, structural analogs are not necessarily functional analogs and can have very different physical, chemical, biochemical, or pharmacological properties.[4]
SWISS-PROT used by SIMEC