Info on IGF 1 LR3 and DES please
Written by Sheriff00 on . Posted in
August 16, 2017 at 3:50 am #2393
Hi there everyone. I would really like to get some answers to my questions, if that’s possible, please. Could you please tell me… is there a general reason as why more people are not using igf 1 DES or LR3 more often?? I did tried to get an answer myself by researching online and I did have seen a couple of some rare threads/ posts about the possibility that it is not as effective as it sounds to be, however to my opinion there were not many of them. but on the other hand… equally… I actually do not see many threads/ posts of people who are actually running it… I thought… maybe I am just missing something altogether? Someone can give me an explanation on this? please. I will be waiting for your responses.August 16, 2017 at 4:52 am #2394KermanParticipant
Hey, I did have ran LR3 by myself and I ran it with MK 677 (I guess you’ve heard about it, but if you haven’t then you really need to search online more about it). To be honest, at least in my opinion based on what I have noticed, the MK has been a better product, for me!
I could say that I haven’t actually felt any difference on the LR3 on its own and I have ran a quite high dose from the very beginning… I mean, it is not the fact that I didn’t take the risk of running a high dose. But on the other hand, the MK, has proved that it is good. it has proved that it does actually what it is advertised that it should do by my personal blood work and also by the physical progress.
In addition to that, what I really like is that MK can be run without a break long term (I mean, maybe it is not being advised this way, however you can with no loss of the effectiveness, at least that’s my experience that I had with it). but the LR3 it is being supposed to be flat lined by the end of the fourth week and maybe even sometime sooner in case you are running it at a high dosage so that’s another plus for MK IMO.
As for the other IGF 1 you’ve mentioned out there, the DES version… I personally never ran it myself so I can’t say anything about it from my experience. If I am going to be taking some shots in and around training time it is going to be GH and insulin. In addition to that, the MK is giving me an really really big pump and that’s why… at least I personally don’t actually see why would I need to go for the DES version of it…
However, I do support those people who are trying to be their own guinea pig though… I wouldn’t ever say that you are wrong by doing that and experimenting… that’s why I say that if you are truly interested in something then you’ve gotta go and try it out IMO as you never know… in the end it may work amazingly well for you!August 16, 2017 at 6:54 am #2395
Well, I can’t actually say very much since I personally have never ran it so there’s nothing I could say from experience. However, will be running the LR 3 for the first time now in a few weeks and maybe after that I could come back with some updates/ experiences.
As for the IGF, as much as I know, it should be honestly used for only 2 purposes, one of them it is to create new fibers that can be expanded during the next bulk or also using des in order to bring up the lagging parts. And that’s pretty much everything.
However you should know that there is a risk involved as well (as with nearly anything out there), to high of a dose and you are risking intestinal growth that is not going to show up to later so if you go for it make sure that you’re safe on it.
I did have done research, of course, on these things, and so far, from the researches that I have done… the LR 3 should be used one or maybe 2 ways low dose, 4 week cycles with 6 being the maximum or really high dose 2 week cycles… I mean… this is maximum, but of course – less means less chances of getting side effects.
As for the DES, it does seem to be amazing for the lagging parts or to make just one part to stand out. but anyway… I perfectly realize that I am absolutely no where even near ready to be trying that deep of a protocol, whoever is interested in doing it should be very aware of what they are doing. I wouldn’t recommend such stuff for people with low knowledge on them.August 16, 2017 at 7:59 am #2396
Oh wow, Kerman. Thanks very much for your post. That’s really interested. I think that I would have never guessed that about an orally active secretagogue over something like for example IGF LR 3. Thank you very much Kerman for taking your time and writing that – for helping me.August 17, 2017 at 11:43 am #2397
And yeah, by the way, Sheriff00, I also forgot to mention earlier that the best book that you could have is your log book, just keep on running it daily… and try to keep writing and having there every single detail and write the measurements in little details as well… and nots too and then decide for yourself. You know that these things are working differently for everyone and that’s why you have to see how it works specifically for you and the more accurate the measurements/ details are the more accurate you would know how it is for you.August 17, 2017 at 11:54 am #2398
Kerman could you please tell me what dosage were you running? And if you could explain in more details what you’ve got from each dose you’ve used?
And also, Dointow, could you please tell me what dosage are you thinking of running? And if possible, why? Thanks again!August 18, 2017 at 6:41 am #2399
Well… I have been thinking to use around 75 mcg of it post work out (4 times per week) for like 3 weeks. And why… well, because IMO it is one of the *middlest* dosage… I mean, while I can get benefits, I am still trying to stay safe.August 18, 2017 at 7:00 am #2401EgoMuchParticipant
Hey there everyone. I did have ran them both and so I do have a little bit of an experience with these which I am going to share here with you hoping it would be helpful. So well, the first one has been DES, did 50 to 100 mcs towards the end of my workout, this stuff has been giving me one extra boost in my pumps, blood flow and in vascularity as well. I’ve also Ran LR 3 100 mcs per day for like 30 days or so. It has given me a full feeling pretty much nearly like a mild insulin if that is making any sense… I just don’t know how I can explain it better. Anyway, I have also found out that LR 3 is it also quite helpful for me in a PCT when I’m feeling flat, fill you up a little bit temporary only. I have also tried the DES post workout however I have got no real feeling at all… or at least that’s my experience. Anyway… as a conclusion I can say that although both of them do help and are useful… they are still IMO only mildly useful… no more than that. What I am trying to say is that in my opinion… none of them are no where close to the real USA pharma IGF 1. However there’s no ‘numbers’ to back up my words. I am currently talking only about what I have noticed and how I was feeling… I mean, I’ve never done any bloods on none of them so who the fxxk can know… but anyway, I still can say that if money it is a problem then I would only buy more gear or I would save for the HGH. anyway… other then that it is only another thing to blast.
All of this is only my opinion based on my experience and nothing more. Please don’t take it too deep 😀
But if there’s anyone who knows what it is the exact compound compared to the real IGF then I would really really like to hear it so such a sharing would be very appreciated. Thanks and hopefully this is going to be helpful to you people.August 18, 2017 at 7:48 am #2402KermanParticipant
Kerman could you please tell me what dosage were you running? And if you could explain in more details what you’ve got from each dose you’ve used?
Well, for whatever this is going to be worth it… I have started the LR 3 at 50 mcg every day for one week and after that week I have got my dosage up to 100 mcg every day. Been dosing before going to bed for approximately 4 weeks or so. I don’t actually cycle since I am on TRT and so I am always ‘on’ so technically speaking… and so pct it is not a factor for me. can’t actually say what is going to be good for you because since I didn’t need it – I haven’t actually researched much on it.August 19, 2017 at 7:43 am #2403
Hi there everyone. I would really like to get some answers to my questions, if that’s possible, please. Could you please tell me… is there a general reason as why more people are not using igf 1 DES or LR3 more often??
So well… I would say that the reasons are pretty much going to be financial due to the fact that the receptor grade human IGF analogues are going to cost much more than somebody’s mortgage to run every single month. And so, to answer your question directly as to the reasons then I tell you: money!
If there is somebody who is going to decide to cut corners and decides to go with the synthesized versions from the peptide companies then I tell you that those people are largely only throwing their money away (or burning them or such) as they are having absolutely no biologic activity so there’s no good reason why they are doing it. similarly to the GH and to the insulin, for the IGF analogues to have bioactivity in our bodies, then they must be made using the recombinant technologies because otherwise, as I tried to said earlier – they are useless and spending money on them is like burning the money down. however, for getting the IGF analogues that are made using the recombinant technologies they are going to set you back anywhere from like $ 300 to even $ 600 per gram! So yeah… money makes the rules here.August 21, 2017 at 8:34 am #2404
Oh well… thank you very much… I think I’ve got it now… but I’ve really wanted to ask… do you really believe that with GH and genetics versus pharma ones? I mean… I’m currently having a little bit of issues to understand as why there are the ‘generics’ for most every drug that exists in this world… and although it may not be a compound as complicated as the GH is, I still cannot imagine that they are that worthless and absolutely useless… or I should? Thanks for explaining and hopefully you will agree explaining it more.August 21, 2017 at 9:14 am #2405
“heriff00, look, I am only talking here about the IGF 1 analogues in the post that I’ve wrote earlier here. For a drug to be considered that it is ‘generic’, then it must be chemically identical to the brand name counterpart, but it is ‘generic’ because it is not the brand. It has the same ‘substance’ so to say. And this is the reason as to why I am not referring to the non FDA branded growth hormone as being ‘generic’.
Well, with all of this being said… there still are some non FDA growth hormone versions out there that do use recombinant technologies and therefore I would not call them to be worthless, or useless or anything in this matter. although there are some of them who indeed are worthless and useless as they are not using these technologies. And so, the ‘danger’ and ‘risk’ it is that there is absolutely no quality control and this is a very and very complicated process. In the end, the FDA growth hormone versions are controlled, they are very tightly controlled and therefore you know for sure what you put into your body. with the non FDA growth hormone versions, there are some of them that are exactly as the FDA ones, but there are only some like that, and you and I don’t know which ones of them are… and therefore who knows what you’re actually putting into your body. I did have read online what can happen at the molecular level when using the recombinant protein that are not being very and very closely controlled using the FDA guidelines. There are just some risks that I wouldn’t like to take, especially when it comes to my life and health.August 23, 2017 at 9:38 am #2406StoneMadeParticipant
similarly to the GH and to the insulin, for the IGF analogues to have bioactivity in our bodies, then they must be made using the recombinant technologies because otherwise, as I tried to said earlier – they are useless and spending money on them is like burning the money down. however, for getting the IGF analogues that are made using the recombinant technologies they are going to set you back anywhere from like $ 300 to even $ 600 per gram! So yeah… money makes the rules here.
Just wanted to comment on this one.LR 3 and DES have been made and sold by licensed pharmacies when they have firstly came out and there are some very high quality RC today that are making them with the DNA recombinant technology. The thing it is that LR 3 and DES are being designer peptides. These ones were never developed to be a recombinant IGF 1 and their chemical structure are not even similar to that of the IGF 1… this makes a huge difference and I have no idea why people just keep on confusing these peptides with the recombinant IGF 1. And by the way… the Chinese laboratories that are making the generic hgh have never bothered to make the recombinant IGF 1 and most research companies as well. I personally did have come across a few US research companies out there that have been having the human recombinant IGF 1 in some small amounts and that’s it! however, when you are looking at the required dosage for the deficient kids only to have a normal IGF level… it goes like 0.12 to 0.22 per kg/ per day. The calculations show that it is not actually cost effective…August 23, 2017 at 10:07 am #2407
There’s just something in your post that can’t believe but I would really love to believe in it… I mean, I am talking about this claim:
and there are some very high quality RC today that are making them with the DNA recombinant technology.
I’m trying to be fully honest with you and that’s why I can tell you: I would really love to believe this is true, however I just cannot! Or at least that’s unless they are having such a price for it that most people cannot afford it. I mean, it should have such a price point that it would be way out of the most people’s financial range!
Well, that’s not me who thinks and says it… just take a look at how much actual recombinant IGF analogues are costing… go on the Gro Pep site. There search for products and after that click on the IGF Analogues. As soon as you’re there you can take a look at how much each one of them costs. Those are the prices which are ‘way out of the most people’s financial range’ as I have said it earlier.August 23, 2017 at 10:42 am #2408
Then, SCANAST, could you please tell me what it is your opinion on all of those other peptides that are on the market out there and what’s their ability to stimulate the pituitary gland into releasing the GH?! please, I would really like to hear more about this.August 24, 2017 at 5:48 am #2409
Oh well… generally talking about it I should say that I personally am not getting the warm and fuzzies when it is coming down to put a rocket booster on the endogenous production of the hormones. I am not very sure but it may be completely fine in the long run, however it is just causing me to pause for a little bit and that’s because the long term effects are not being available to us and I don’t actually want to risk…August 24, 2017 at 6:44 am #2410EgoMuchParticipant
oh well.. if talking about the manufacturing costs of the HGH… at least rom what I have been told from someone that I do trust… it costs pretty much the same as creating/ manufacturing insulin, plus or minus. That’s since it is used the exact same type of the equipment and that’s basically with any protein peptide as it is pretty much the same. The reason for the high cost of the HGH sold by the pharma companies it is just the low demand compared to the insulin. Of course there are also other factors that comes at play for this price, however the manufacturing cost of it is definitely not the main reason and it is not as if they are paying a lot of money for manufacturing or anything in this matter. the way I have been explained (sorry I can’t explain the same way, of course, I just share what I’ve understand from what I heard there) it just cannot cost that much. And once again, I one do trust the person that has told me all of this. in fact.. of course I can’t know for sure how true this is, maybe that’s not true at all… however this is truly making sense to me and that’s just another reason for me to believe him. And yeah, in addition to that, there are no pharma generics out there like every other drug out there so think about this for a second. What I don’t know if this is coinciding with the IGF 1 too, I’m wondering about this myself. Anyway… the most important point is… we’re not paying such high prices because it is expensive to manufacture them… in fact we’re just paying such high prices just to make the pharma even bigger/ richer!August 26, 2017 at 9:48 am #2411StoneMadeParticipant
You know… the price tag does not actually mean anything at all.. I’m talking mostly about this part:
Well, that’s not me who thinks and says it… just take a look at how much actual recombinant IGF analogues are costing… go on the Gro Pep site. There search for products and after that click on the IGF Analogues. As soon as you’re there you can take a look at how much each one of them costs. Those are the prices which are ‘way out of the most people’s financial range’ as I have said it earlier.
The HGH it is some of the hardest hormone out there to produce as it is having a chain of the 191 amino acids unlike others and although it is the hardest hormone out there to make, the Chinese companies out there are still able to provide us some really good quality of rHGH for ‘not so high prices’. In addition to that, the IGF analogue and the IGF 1 are completely different, you should have known that. The Increlex is being quite the same to the naturally occurring IGF 1 that is being naturally produced by human liver. And DES and LR3 are being chemically distinguishable from the human IGF 1. This is the reason why they are not having the exact same biological action out there. maybe this is going to be helpful a bit.August 26, 2017 at 10:02 am #2412
So… could you please, expand this a little bit more? I mean, I would really like to get a clarification. If they are not having the exact same biological action (the LR3/ DES versus the Human Grade) then what biological action are they having as they are being marketed as being ‘IGF’. Or there’s something that I am missing there? this is pretty much the reason why I have asked for a clarification as I can’t understand it very well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.