Long R3 IGF-1?  

  RSS

iced
 iced
(@iced)
Active Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 16
23/06/2018 5:43 pm  

Its a hot topic on Anasci, figured Id get some thougths over here.

· Long™R3IGF-I is an analog of human IGF-I.
· It is a superior alternative to insulin in serum-free media.
· It increases protein production by cells in culture medium.
· It increases cell viability by inhibiting apoptosis.
· It has a longer half-life in cell culture than insulin.
· It is readily available.
· There is secure and ample manufacturing capacity at GroPep Limited.
· No animal- or human- derived material is used in the manufacture or storage of Long™R3IGF-I.
· Long™R3IGF-I is already being used in the manufacture of three (3) biopharmaceuticals approved by FDA and EMEA.

Frequently Asked Questions

What cell types will respond to Long™R3IGF-I?
All cells that have a Type I IGF receptor will potentially respond. Most commercially used cells including CHO, fibroblasts and hybridomas have a type I IGF receptor. All cells which respond to pharmacological concentrations of insulin (>1 mg/liter) will respond to Long™R3IGF-I (10-50 mg/liter).

Is storage of the stock solution at 4°C acceptable?
Yes

How long is the stock solution stable for under these storage conditions?
Liquid stability data shows that Long™R3IGF-I is stable for 3 years (-20°C to 37°C). Therefore, the stock solution should be stable at 4°C for 3 years.

What type of preparation is available?
Liquid formulation, preferable for GMP production.
Freeze dried preparation.

Is Long™R3IGF-I stable?
Re-test date for freeze-dried peptide is 3 years. Liquid formulation stability studies have recently been completed. It is stable for 3 years (-20°C to +37°C). We have data indicating stability in media at 4°C for 1 year.

Here is an article written by a self-experimenter.

December 15, 2000

Answer: What a perfect question! You actually have talked to just the right person. I have a business associate that worked for the company that produces this in Australia. Several years ago, I ordered 10mg of Long R3 IGF-1 and used it for several months. What I found out was truly amazing.

Before I tell you about my results, let me tell you that if you are going to use IGF-1 then make sure it is the Long R3 version! Let me explain. Regular IGF-1 like what is produced in your body is transported around connected to binding proteins. There are quite a few of these and their main purpose is to grab ahold of the IGF-1 peptide and keep it from being quickly degraded. Without these binding proteins, all of the IGF-1 would be metabolized in the body within a few minutes. The problem (at least it seems like a problem but might actually be a good thing) is that these binding proteins basically prevent the IGF-1 from performing its function. As long as IGF-1 is attached to the binding protein it cannot do the cool stuff that it wants to do. Regular IGF-1 must be released from its binding protein in order to accomplish its mission. Part of the problem is that much of the IGF-1 is degraded before it is released (seems like much is wasted doesn’t it?)

With Long R3 IGF-1 this problem doesn’t exist. Understand that the Long R3 version does not bind to the various binding proteins. It is free to move throughout your body and immediately start doing all the cool stuff that it wants to do. Again, understand that the Long R3 version is several orders of magnitude stronger than regular IGF-1.

If you would happen to use regular IGF-1, you would need several milligrams per day in order to get the desired effect. With the Long R3 version, you need only microgram quantities. Long R3 is also inherently MUCH cheaper to produce. What I am saying is that for the average person, regular IGF-1 is not practical-it is too expensive and you need to use too much. With Long R3 IGF-1, the price to results ratio is pretty good!

Something else I want to explain is how I went about preparing it for injection into my body. Unfortunately, this is not easy and the average person will have a hard time doing it. At the time, I worked in a sophisticated lab which had all of the necessary equipment. I ordered 10mg of Long R3 IGF-1 and it came in a single flip-top vial. 10mg might not seem like much but believe me, when it comes to Long R3 IGF-1, it is a ton! Some people might say to just add saline to the vial, keep it in the fridge and inject it when necessary. However, this will not work well because the IGF-1 is not highly stable and will degrade in an aqueous environment. 10mg was enough for many months and I needed a way that would allow the IGF-1 to remain potent during this entire time. I did my research and developed my method. I ordered what is known as microvials and sterilized them. I then diluted the IGF-1 with sterile water and added just a tad of acid to increase stability. Although it took quite a while, I then used a micropipette and alliquotted an amount of solution that contained 50mcg into one of my microvials. I closed the microvial and then froze it in a deep freezer. When I was ready to inject, I took out one or more of my microvials, thawed it out, combined it with saline and injected it.

When I first started taking Long R3 IGF-1, I used 50mcg every other day. Amazingly, within days, I started noticing some effects in my body. I felt super hungry all of the time and just felt “anabolic”. I can’t describe this feeling except to say that it was very similar to being on anabolic steroids (I wasn’t on at the time). Within one month, I gained almost 17 pounds of fairly lean mass! After the first month, something happened though and I noticed that it didn’t seem to be working that well. I upped the dosage several times over the next month to keep up the desired effects. On the third month, I was using several hundred micrograms per day but wasn’t noticing any further gains. All in all, I gained about 20 pounds of pretty solid mass!

Please notice that almost all of my gains were within the first month of taking the Long R3 IGF-1. After this first month, my gains slowed down considerably and eventually stopped altogether even though I was taking high dosages. Why did this happen?

From all of my research, I suppose one of two things might have happened to prevent me from making further gains. What I truly suspect is that the Long R3 IGF-1 downregulated the amount of binding proteins being produced by my body (research confirms this). When I first started to inject the IGF-1, I was supplementing my own body’s IGF-1. I not only had my own IGF-1 working throughout the day but I had the potent surges of Long R3 IGF-1 that I would inject. Over time though, the binding proteins were downregulated. Of course my body continued to produce some (albeit less) IGF-1, however, because there were very little or no binding proteins it was quickly degraded. From what I can tell, I was in a state where 95% of the day my body did not have the benefits of IGF-1. Basically, it got what it got when I injected the Long R3 version.

The other possibility is that I built up antibodies to the Long R3 IGF-1 which basically sought out and destroyed what I injected. Although possible, I don’t believe this actually happened because it is not supported by research. I have seen no evidence which suggests that Long R3 IGF-1 causes antibody production.

To fix the above problem, one would have to cycle the Long R3 IGF-1. The best thing would probably be to take it every other month. This would allow your own body’s IGF-1 and binding proteins to return to normal.

Overall, I had a good experience with Long R3 IGF-1. The results were different than with steroids. I have noticed that steroids cause preferential growth of certain muscles, especially those that are stressed (as in lifting). The IGF-1 though seemed to cause my entire body to get a little thicker. I guess IGF-1 is less compensatory in nature and exerts a more whole-body anabolicity.

Would I recommend IGF-1? To the right person who is very careful and knows what he’s doing and has a good background in the sciences and has access to a good lab, YES! However, you can tell that I have listed many prerequisites to using it. For the average Joe, I believe is is just too complicated to be safe.


ReplyQuote
Nandi
(@nandi)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 138
23/06/2018 6:04 pm  

I've never seen any research on whether it is anabolic in humans. Interestingly, it is anabolic in rats but CATABOLIC in pigs. I guess it depends on whether pigs or rats are more like people.

Growth hormone (GH) improves growth performance in the pig. Analogues of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) that bind poorly to IGF binding proteins (IGFBP) stimulate growth in the rat but, in contrast, inhibit growth in the pig. This study was designed to determine the effect of IGF peptides alone or in combination with porcine GH (pGH) on growth characteristics and plasma hormone concentrations in finisher pigs. A four-day infusion of Long [R3] IGF-I (LR3IGF-I; 180 micrograms/kg/day) decreased the average daily gain, food intake, and plasma IGFBP-3, IGF-I and insulin concentrations. (1)

In any case, when you look at the studies that have shown it to be anabolic in rats, it has either been infused (like in the pig study), or administered from an implanted pump. If administered by injection, since it binds only weakly to IGFBP-3, it is degraded before it reaches the target tissue.

Don't waste your money on it.

(1) J Endocrinol 1997 Dec;155(3):559-65

Long [R3] insulin-like growth factor-I reduces growth, plasma growth hormone, IGF binding protein-3 and endogenous IGF-I concentrations in pigs.

Dunaiski V, Dunshea FR, Walton PE, Goddard C.


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 153
27/06/2018 12:50 pm  

Is this Insmed's new version they are going to release with the IGF already bound to IGFBP-3 ? Somatokine or whatever the hell it is called ?

I'm assuming its not since you state poor binding to IGFBP-3 which would be irrelevant since the Somatokine is already bound to it.

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
iced
 iced
(@iced)
Active Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 16
27/06/2018 1:46 pm  

I wondered if anyone had anything negative to say about it, they were acting like it was the 2nd coming of Christ on Anasci.


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 153
27/06/2018 2:23 pm  

If this is the product I would assume it is quite good, at least Insmed's latest press releases indicate magnificent results.

But I doubt we are talking about the same product. If it is merely an IGF-1 analog that exhibits less binding to the BP's, then as nandi point out the lack of binding to IGF-BP3 will even out the odds, making it as useless as the old IGF-1.

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
Nandi
(@nandi)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 138
27/06/2018 3:11 pm  

These are two different products. The IGF-1/IGFBP product is called Somatokine. The other LRIGF-1 is a structurally modified version of IGF-1

Somatokine was developed to offset a couple of problems associated with using straight IGF-1. One major problem with using unbound IGF-1 is that it can cause severe hypoglycemia in some patients. The addition of IGFBP-3 moderates this effect. The other is the short elimination time of IGF-1 in its unbound state. There is obviously a tradeoff here. Adding the binding protein reduces bioavailability, but it prolongs the lifetime. The research has shown that it is better to sacrifice some bioavailability in favor of prolonged lifetime. In pharmacological parlance, the "area under the curve" AUC for IGF-1 was greater with Somatokine than with IGF-1:

In contrast to the administration of free IGF-I, IGF-I/IGFBP-3 dosing leads to increased systemic IGF-I exposure (i.e. increased area under the time vs. serum concentration curve or AUC) and decreased clearance (CL) (1)

There is also evidence that free IGF-1 is what is responsible for GH suppression. So somatokine should have less of a suppressive effect on GH (2).

Here is a quote from one study on Somatokine

CONCLUSION: rhIGF-I/rhIGFBP-3 (SomatoKine) was a significant stimulator of muscle protein synthesis in chronically semi-starved animals whereas IGF-I alone failed to increase protein synthesis during the same experimental conditions. This stimulation was because of increased initiation of translation, likely induced by more physiologic concentrations/kinetics of plasma IGF-I and amino acids following rhIGF-I/rhIGFBP-3 treatment, compared to IGF-I in its free form (3)

(1) Prog Growth Factor Res 1995;6(2-4):347-56

Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of rhIGF-I/IGFBP-3 in the rat and monkey.

Adams S, Moore J, Chu S, Bagi C, DeLeon L, Liu C, Schmidt D, Sommer A.

(2) J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998 Aug;83(8):2836-

Recovery of growth hormone release from suppression by exogenous insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I): evidence for a suppressive action of free rather than bound IGF-I.

Chapman IM, Hartman ML, Pieper KS, Skiles EH, Pezzoli SS, Hintz RL, Thorner MO.

(3) Eur J Clin Invest 2000 May;30(5):438-46

rhIGF-I/IGFBP-3 complex, but not free rhIGF-I, supports muscle protein biosynthesis in rats during semistarvation.

Svanberg E, Ohlsson C, Kimball SR, Lundholm K.


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 153
27/06/2018 3:53 pm  

Thanx for the heads up.

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
stackboy
(@stackboy)
New Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 1
27/06/2018 4:24 pm  

my friend just finished a month of sigma long r3 igf-1 and has went up 17 pounds and leaned out... i went up thirteen pounds... there is no doubt that it DOES work. (maybe not for everyone, but it did for us).


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 153
27/06/2018 5:09 pm  

Doubtful, what nandi said sounds logical, poor IGFBP3 binding would increase clearance time and decrease systemic delivery. Local injections combined with insulin seem like a more logical approach.

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
Sphinx
(@sphinx)
New Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 3
27/06/2018 5:47 pm  

Nandi, no flame bro, but I beg to differ. Look at stackboy, I hear that same story, from everyone ive ever spoken to whose used LR3IGF-1, not one person has ever had unsatisfactory gains from it, these guys gain mass, and get cut, at the same time, while munching massive amounts of food.

Whether or not it works in a pig, or a rat, or a wombat, or a sabre tooth tiger, isnt relative to bodybuilding. If some scientist says it sux, and another say it rocks, it doesnt matter. What should speak for itself, are the users experiences, not some guy dripping it onto cells in a petri dish.

Furthermore, email Gropep, or Insmed, or any lab that deals with IGF-1 and LR3IGF-1 and ask them straight up "Is it anabolic in humans?". The answer will be yes, so if your inclined to only beleive somone with a PHD, beleive those who actually have researched it in humans, not farm animals.

Please stop the misinformation, and bashing of this substance. Until you try it yourself, or can show me personal user experiences that say it 'sucked balls', dont bash it, please.

No flame bro (if it comes off that way I apologize).


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 153
27/06/2018 6:21 pm  

I don't think anyone will take your post as a flame, but it is rather irrelevant. What you are telling us is hearsay, and what I hear actually supports what nandi says. That too is irrelevant since neither of us can back this up and it only pertains to uncontrolled circumstances on a limited group of people.

I'm more inclined to side with something backed by independent study, than something merely supported by preliminary studies performed by the manufacturing company.

I also don't believe this is meant to convince anyone. if you believe it works, we are not stopping you from using it in any way. What nandi is saying is that there are concerns about the efficacy any user should be aware of prior to spending a lot of money on something that may not work, and definitily will not work as well as the dough you spend ...

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
Nandi
(@nandi)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 138
27/06/2018 6:53 pm  

quote:


By the way it IS anabolic in humans, would you like a link


That was a nice link to an outline of basic endocrinology, but I did not see any reference to LRIGF-1.

There is no question IGF-1 is anabolic in kids with GH resistance, for whom it was developed. And the newer version that we were discussing that is a combination of IGF/IGFBP-3 will probably work much better. But there is no proof as far as I'm concerned that regular or Long IGF-1 does anything in normal healthy adults.

There are dozens of anabolic boards you can go to Sphinx and tell stories and listen to stories about the magic of everything from HMB to IGF-1. But here we try to present data that may help those who are more interested in research findings than hype. That's the way it's been and will continue to be. I'm sorry if that disturbs you.


ReplyQuote
Sphinx
(@sphinx)
New Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 3
27/06/2018 7:28 pm  

Nandi, if IGF-1 is anabolic, then what reason do you have to beleive LR3IGF-1 is NOT anabolic?

Why dont you email Gropep, cause I did, and they said its anabolic in humans. Nuff said for me to beleive since they create LR3IGF-1 and research it daily.

Big Cat, just because they manufacture it, doesnt mean theyre like the supplement companies who lie through their teeth to sell it. Cause they dont even sell it to just normal people. They research it more in depth than any independant study could ever do. To insinuate that their studies are biased is wrong, as well as their intentions being anything less than the most professional research and development of it.

You say it "may" not work, I say it will work. A will is beyond a may. Im guarantee'ing it works, your saying it possibly might not. Also, the studies you guys read, arent about its use in humans... your making completely false assumptions based on some testing that isnt even related to a human.

Theres no doubt Somatokine would work better, but I have contacted Insmed about Somatokine and it wont be on the market till 2005. However I am still capable of acquiring some if I can makeup a legitimate research protocol/proposal, but thats far too much effort for me to go through with. As well, im sure its price is through the roof and completely unrealistic.


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 153
27/06/2018 8:11 pm  
Posted by: Sphinx
Nandi, if IGF-1 is anabolic, then what reason do you have to beleive LR3IGF-1 is NOT anabolic?

Why dont you email Gropep, cause I did, and they said its anabolic in humans. Nuff said for me to beleive since they create LR3IGF-1 and research it daily.


And we always believe the manufacturer ...

quote:


Big Cat, just because they manufacture it, doesnt mean theyre like the supplement companies who lie through their teeth to sell it. Cause they dont even sell it to just normal people. They research it more in depth than any independant study could ever do. To insinuate that their studies are biased is wrong, as well as their intentions being anything less than the most professional research and development of it.


Exactly why, do you have any idea what sort of money and time goes into testing these things ? And what was I thinking a Pharmaceutical concern who invested millions of dollars into developing this might be the least bit concerned with financial returns ...

And of course they don't sell it to normal people, and like nandi said, noone is questioning that it works in children with pathologically low GH levels. But we are talking about healthy athletes and a hormone with a very, VERY tightly regulated feedback mechanism.

quote:


You say it "may" not work, I say it will work. A will is beyond a may. Im guarantee'ing it works, your saying it possibly might not. Also, the studies you guys read, arent about its use in humans... your making completely false assumptions based on some testing that isnt even related to a human.


With that said, at least I make assumptions based on testing ...

Hope that didn't hurt too much.

quote:


Theres no doubt Somatokine would work better, but I have contacted Insmed about Somatokine and it wont be on the market till 2005. However I am still capable of acquiring some if I can makeup a legitimate research protocol/proposal, but thats far too much effort for me to go through with. As well, im sure its price is through the roof and completely unrealistic.

Stock news a few weeks back said 2004.

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
Sphinx
(@sphinx)
New Member
Joined: 5 months  ago
Posts: 3
27/06/2018 9:04 pm  

Dear ______,

We will be initiating our Phase III study for Growth Hormone
Insensitivity
Syndrome (Laron Syndrome) toward the end of the 2nd quarter this
year. We
expect to complete an interim analysis in the first quarter of 2004
and
final analysis in the 3rd quarter of 2004. If the patient numbers and
results of the interim analysis are sufficient, we would expect to be
on the
market in 2004, otherwise it would most likely be 2005.

If you would like SomatoKine for animal research, please submit a
protocol/proposal for that research and I will pass it on to our
Director of
Pre-Clinical Research.

With sincere regards,

Ronald D. Gunn
Vice President, Business Development
Insmed Incorporated

LOL OH, and nice member# there big cat... LOL 666


ReplyQuote
Share:
  
Working

Please Login or Register