GH, IGF1 and should I combine them ?

Sciroxx · Sep 2, 2016

calmb4dastorm said:
There is NO NEED OR DESIRE FOR YOU TO GO. I, personally, do NOT feel the need for this thread to be deleted. We are by NO MEANS COMPARABLE to Meso or any other forum. It is very easy to take offense or become defensive with text on a page as there is no emotion or facial expressions to go by. This indeed is a VERY USEFUL TOPIC AND IS UP FOR HEALTHY DEBATE. I am considering running IGF1-DES in the near future and would like all the info I can get on its use, stacking, sides, benefits, pros, cons. I think people should be able to disagree on a topic without being disagreeable. Please continue to share with us!

The more popular and know is the IGF1-lr3, but the IGF1-DES is a very interesting product which may offer some unique benefits. The lr3 has an autocrine effect, meaning it is absorbed into the serum and from there interacts with its receptors on various target tissues, actually there are target tissues for IGF1 almost on any organ besides brain and eyes. Also very interesting is (as you may learn from the article I quoted) IGF1 has a distinct and dramatic anti catabolic effect, which GH doesn't (even that GH does increase serum IGF1 levels). The IGF1 -DES more of an paracrine effect, meaning it's absorbed in more of a local fashion and effects target tissues in the location of the injection, The DES is of course also absorbed into the circulation, but unlike the lr3 which has a half life of about 20 hours, it has a very short half life so most of the effect is local, this is an advanced way to cause some local growth in certain stubborn muscles.

swolesam · Sep 2, 2016

Im guna clear my conscious, and say this. The argument to add IGF to GH to improve insulin sensitivity is like saying let me bash my kitchen countertop to kill a small fly on it. Just as ridiculous.

There are SO many supplements, and even prescription drugs available to counter the sides from GH whether its water retention, or reduced insulin sensitivity or whatever side it may be. These supplements and drugs don't share the high risk profile of IGF, and in the same token are ten folds more potent to rectify these sides with a fraction of the price and much more ease of administration (list goes on & on) , hence superior.

Now, if you want to combine IGF & HGH to maximize bodybuilding potential, knowing the risks, sure you'll get ways ahead physique wise. As long as you are making the decision with knowledge.

Thanks for listening.

Sciroxx · Sep 2, 2016

This very article discuss in the multiple, synergistic paths - anabolic, anti catabiolic and metabolic - results from the combination of IGF1 and GH. One of the metabolic advantages is increasing insulin sensitivity.

There is NO proven supplement ever tested along with GH treatment to proven and reduce insulin resistance, if so show me

There is NO proven drug, tested by clinical trials and recommended by health care professionals, to negate the insulin resistance increased by GH. Insulin is certainly much much more dangerous, and less appropriate then IGF, and drugs like Metformin carries some side effects, and again never tested along with GH.

Here, just as a quick example is a clinical trial aimed exactly for anti-catabiolic/anabolic purposes on human patient require such severe treatment (I assume that if the medical world would have a better remedy it would be offered bro ?!)

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10571453

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Administration of growth factors such as growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) is being investigated as a strategy to promote nitrogen accretion in catabolic patients who may require total parenteral nutrition (TPN). IGF-I has advantages compared with GH because IGF-I enhances insulin sensitivity, is effective in conditions of GH resistance, and selectively stimulates the gastrointestinal and immune systems.

METHODS:

Experiments were conducted to evaluate the anabolic and metabolic effects associated with administration of recombinant human GH or IGF-I in rats subjected to clinically relevant stress and maintained with TPN.

RESULTS:

Administration of IGF-I, but not GH, attenuates dexamethasone-induced protein catabolism and increases insulin sensitivity. Simultaneous treatment with GH and IGF-I additively increases the serum concentration of IGF-I, whole-body anabolism, and lipid oxidation. GH or IGF-I when given alone produces similar increases in the serum concentration of IGF-I. However, GH selectively increases skeletal muscle mass whereas IGF-I selectively attenuates the intestinal atrophy and abnormal intestinal ion transport induced by TPN. These tissue-selective anabolic effects of GH and IGF-I are associated with differential increases in protein synthesis in skeletal muscle and jejunum, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

Simultaneous treatment with GH and IGF-I may offer the greatest clinical efficacy because of improved nitrogen retention in association with enhanced lipid oxidation and stimulation of protein synthesis in multiple tissue types.

PMID:: 10571453

SemperFi · Sep 3, 2016

Sciroxx said:
The IGF1 -DES more of an paracrine effect, meaning it's absorbed in more of a local fashion and effects target tissues in the location of the injection, The DES is of course also absorbed into the circulation, but unlike the lr3 which has a half life of about 20 hours, it has a very short half life so most of the effect is local, this is an advanced way to cause some local growth in certain stubborn muscles.

Could you please explain how it would have a more localized effect on muscle growth since insulin receptors are found throughout the human body? Example if I injected IM into my bicep and the IGF entered my system why would the local receptors within the bicep be more receptive than lets say the receptors in my calf?Any scientific research supporting this claim would also be greatly appreciated.Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge.SEMPER FI

swolesam · Sep 3, 2016

Its common sense scroixx. Metformin increases insulin sensitivity in skeletal cells, with low dosage is highly tolerated by all age groups. Other supplements like Chromium, Cinnamon, Mulberry seed extract, .... all work wonders when it comes to sensitizing skeletal cells for better insulin sensitivity. Read up on each seperately.

As long as each of these has no Drug Interaction with rHGH, they will work. That easy.

So before rushing out to get your IGF for the SOLE PURPOSE of insulin sensitivity, research alternatives.

GH & Metformin study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14983408

Sciroxx · Sep 3, 2016

swolesam said:
Its common sense scroixx. Metformin increases insulin sensitivity in skeletal cells, with low dosage is highly tolerated by all age groups. Other supplements like Chromium, Cinnamon, Mulberry seed extract, .... all work wonders when it comes to sensitizing skeletal cells for better insulin sensitivity. Read up on each seperately.As long as each of these has no Drug Interaction with rHGH, they will work. That easy.So before rushing out to get your IGF for the SOLE PURPOSE of insulin sensitivity, research alternatives. GH & Metformin study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14983408

Thank u for the important info, Metformin is widely used, with some success by the athletes community, his main advantage is that it is much cheaper, generally it's a tolerable drug, but major part of patient report on some level of gastric discomfort. It of course doesn't offer the anabolic, anto catabolic and some of the metabolic unique effects of the IGF1More ever -- We may learn from the article that GH usage lowers the sensitivity of the body to insulin treatment - many athletes use insulin in conjuction with GH to balance sugar levels and increase the anabolic impact of GH, IGF1 as u may conclude is much more effective here- In this article the treatment of GH + MEtformin didn't offer any conclusive positive anabolic/anti-catabolic and metabolic effects, in contrast to GH+IGF1 which clearly had distinctively these effectsHere are the conclusions from the article -However, since our data did not show significant differences between the two treatment groups with respect to body composition or lipid metabolism, future studies including larger numbers of patients will have to clarify whether the positive effects of rhGH on cardiovascular risk factors that have been shown in patients with GH deficiency are also present in patients with metabolic syndrome, and are additive to the effects of metformin.it's interesting but in the article you quoted it's clearly seen that

Sciroxx · Sep 3, 2016

SemperFi said:


Sciroxx said:

The IGF1 -DES more of an paracrine effect, meaning it's absorbed in more of a local fashion and effects target tissues in the location of the injection, The DES is of course also absorbed into the circulation, but unlike the lr3 which has a half life of about 20 hours, it has a very short half life so most of the effect is local, this is an advanced way to cause some local growth in certain stubborn muscles.

Click to expand...

Could you please explain how it would have a more localized effect on muscle growth since insulin receptors are found throughout the human body? Example if I injected IM into my bicep and the IGF entered my system why would the local receptors within the bicep be more receptive than lets say the receptors in my calf?Any scientific research supporting this claim would also be greatly appreciated.Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge.SEMPER FI

<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">First I'm not aware to any clinical trials that detected local anabolic effects of IGF1-DES bro, what I offered is some practical empirical data based on multiple reports from athletes, I will search when have some serious free time for more based infoThe notion is this - when you apply IM injection the drug is absorbed by local capillary blood vessels which feeds local muscle, from there the drug is kept being transported into the circulation and aim to the whole body's tissues. Then DES has a very high affinity to the IGF1-receptor (claimed to be 12 times higher then endogenous IGF1) and a very short half life, so statistically major part of the injected DES interacts with local receptors, and have a high impact there, while most doesn't get into the autocrine circulation </div>

SemperFi · Sep 3, 2016

So what you are stating from athletes experience is that the DES version has an affinity to be absorbed by the receptors closest to the injection sight via autocrine signaling... is this correct?

How can this happen so fast since it only take about 60 seconds for blood to fully circulate throughout the body? Or is the DES unavailable to the circulatory system? Isn't the half life of DES 10-25 minutes?

Could it possibly be a placebo effect expressed by the individual?

I am sorry for all of my questions but I am very OCD to the why's and how's. I look forward to you presenting more information when your time allows.

SEMPER FI

SemperFi · Sep 3, 2016

swolesam said:
So before rushing out to get your IGF for the SOLE PURPOSE of insulin sensitivity, research alternatives.

That would be one very expensive investment with a very limited return. As a trader Hulk I don't think you would recommend this approach for us. I could accomplish the same thing with about $26 worth of supplements as you suggest with FREE 2 day shipping.

Back to KP's post... the cost vs. return makes zero sense. He even provided this advice to me though PM before I spent the money but I choose not to listen. Shame on me. Thanks for helping me keep my options open and my future vacation fund intact.SEMPER FI

Sciroxx · Sep 3, 2016

SemperFi said:
So what you are stating from athletes experience is that the DES version has an affinity to be absorbed by the receptors closest to the injection sight via autocrine signaling... is this correct?How can this happen so fast since it only take about 60 seconds for blood to fully circulate throughout the body? Or is the DES unavailable to the circulatory system? Isn't the half life of DES 10-25 minutes?Could it possibly be a placebo effect expressed by the individual?I am sorry for all of my questions but I am very OCD to the why's and how's. I look forward to you presenting more information when your time allows.SEMPER FI

I happen to suffer from OCD as well brother, IGF1 can treat this either

U may call me over sensitive but I feel that you try your best to give me hard time, this will simply discourage me from posting, so I guess you get what u have tried to achieve, well done. I will try for the last time - As you know despite your OCD athletes are not mentally connected to their receptors, so they don't experience receptors activation. What I clearly said is that athletes experience and report on local growth to some degree on the injected muscles, along with extremely intense pumps, which may also indicate (this is a speculation, not yet a clinical proven fact) on its bind to receptors that have been deformed by lactic acid, which is often present during workouts. This allows the DES to attach itself to a mutated receptor and signal tissue growth during training.It takes much m0re then 60 seconds for an IM compound to be released fully into the general circulation, and it's of course depends on multiple factors, this may enable some paracrine activity

swolesam · Sep 3, 2016

+1 SF - Not only Free 2 day shipping, i will use my CC points for the purchase as well which renders the gran total owed = $0. Love your keen eye on details and the research you do for us here in MG is priceless. Thank you SF!

SemperFi · Sep 3, 2016

You can thank me by offering me a "HOT" trade tip for a quick profit. I am a little strapped for cash from my last purchase of IGF-1 LR3.

SEMPER FI

SemperFi · Sep 3, 2016

Sciroxx said:
U may call me over sensitive but I feel that you try your best to give me hard time, this will simply discourage me from posting, so I guess you get what u have tried to achieve, well done.

My motive is simply to become better educated. Asking questions I do not have the answers to is the best way to do that. As a source for products I simply assumed you would be the best place to go to receive these answers.If you were considering purchasing a new car wouldn't you ask tough questions of the salesperson concerning the features of the vehicle you did not know about. Especially if they were also the manufacturer of the specific model that you had an interest in?SEMPER FI

SemperFi · Sep 4, 2016

Sciroxx said:

 
So first, and you're probably aware to it, testosterone is the main factor in the most common cancer in males (prostate), same as estrogen is responsible on the most common cancer at women (breath cancer).

Thanks for sharing and we love active sources here on MG.
Your statement is clinically inaccurate and completely false as of this writing. It is very far reaching and irresponsible to attribute testosterone to this disease because the science does not support the connection. The research speaks for itself. The exact mechanism of carcinogenesis is unknown despite $300 million spent annually on research in the US alone. Do you know something that millions of dollars in research does not? Yes, there are studies that show that higher testosterone in older men can increase the risk of prostate cancer cell development by a very small percentage. It is an increased risk only and in now way links testosterone to cause prostate cancer. I can also quote multiple research studies that suggest estrogen levels increase the risk of prostate cancer. Would you be willing to say that estrogen is the main factor in prostate cancer as well?
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/prostate-cancer-what-causes
BTW- You linking estrogen levels and breast cancer has the same flaws. It is associated with increased risk only and estro suppression is a poplar treatment but in now way is it the main factor or cause.
To clarify and prevent any reader confusion, there is absolutely zero research evidence that has shown the cause of or main factors, such as testosterone, that lead to the development of prostate cancer. There is not even a proven remote link between the two.
IMO gene mutation and hereditary development factors are the contributing factors to the development of prostate cancer.
SEMPER FI

swolesam · Sep 5, 2016

lol indeed.

Sciroxx · Sep 5, 2016

SemperFi said:


Sciroxx said:

 You are really do your best to stray from the subject on this thread, and try to dispute based things I simply mentioned to show a balanced perspective to the mentioned cancer issueSimple medline search will yield endless linkages between testosterone levels and prostate cancer, the treatment of prostate tumors is anti-testosterone/anti-dehydrotestosterone(which is a direct derivate of testosterone) whatsoever no one claimed that testosterone cause by itself the cancer, not at all ! it's obvious there are multiple parameter in role, some of them u mentioned. Same for breath cancer - first aid measure, and constant measure actually is an anti estrogen for a reason.Now dear brother - prostate (or breath) cancer is not my expertise, neither yours, I'm not sure why you're so eager to post on this matter on this thread, and more ever things which are simply not valid I posted on the synergistic effect between IGF1 and GH, with relevant references, and stand behind any fact, and happy to share this knowlede with the members This is the only forum to encounter such negative crowed reaction (by couple of guys with obvious agenda) when posting such valuable info Now do me and any honest member a favor and stop the arguments for the sake of arguments So first, and you're probably aware to it, testosterone is the main factor in the most common cancer in males (prostate), same as estrogen is responsible on the most common cancer at women (breath cancer).

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing and we love active sources here on MG.Your statement is clinically inaccurate and completely false as of this writing. It is very far reaching and irresponsible to attribute testosterone to this disease because the science does not support the connection. The research speaks for itself. The exact mechanism of carcinogenesis is unknown despite $300 million spent annually on research in the US alone. Do you know something that millions of dollars in research does not? Yes, there are studies that show that higher testosterone in older men can increase the risk of prostate cancer cell development by a very small percentage. It is an increased risk only and in now way links testosterone to cause prostate cancer. I can also quote multiple research studies that suggest estrogen levels increase the risk of prostate cancer. Would you be willing to say that estrogen is the main factor in prostate cancer as well?http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/prostate-cancer-what-causesBTW- You linking estrogen levels and breast cancer has the same flaws. It is associated with increased risk only and estro suppression is a poplar treatment but in now way is it the main factor or cause.To clarify and prevent any reader confusion, there is absolutely zero research evidence that has shown the cause of or main factors, such as testosterone, that lead to the development of prostate cancer. There is not even a proven remote link between the two.IMO gene mutation and hereditary development factors are the contributing factors to the development of prostate cancer.SEMPER FI

SemperFi · Sep 7, 2016

Sciroxx said:

Simple medline search will yield endless linkages between testosterone levels and prostate cancer, the treatment of prostate tumors is anti-testosterone/anti-dehydrotestosterone(which is a direct derivate of testosterone) whatsoever no one claimed that testosterone cause by itself the cancer, not at all ! it's obvious there are multiple parameter in role, some of them u mentioned. Same for breath cancer - first aid measure, and constant measure actually is an anti estrogen for a reason.
Now dear brother - prostate (or breath) cancer is not my expertise, neither yours, I'm not sure why you're so eager to post on this matter on this thread, and more ever things which are simply not valid.
 This is the only forum to encounter such negative crowed reaction (by couple of guys with obvious agenda) when posting such valuable in
 
So first, and you're probably aware to it, testosterone is the main factor in the most common cancer in males (prostate), same as estrogen is responsible on the most common cancer at women (breath cancer).

I am eager to post on this matter because your are stating things concerning prostate cancer that are just not proven true. It certainly can be considered a mute issue by you but I am emphatical when it comes to requesting accurate information and unfortunately you are not the sole source of information in our free form forum. If you want to be the only source of information/opinion and dictate the direction of a a debate start a blog or an editorial page.

Again your last sentence based on the known science is a fabrication in an attempt to prove an unprovable point. I have no idea what the main factor (but I did state an opinion on this) of prostate cancer is and neither does $300 million in annual research but for some strange reason you believe that you do.
The suppression of testosterone in prostate patients and estrogen in breast cancer patients is simply removing the fuel from a fire that has been started by an unknown catalyst. Does hormone treatment that you stated cure the disease? In both diseases a cure remains very controversial. But based on your belief there should be no question that they are both curable with hormone treatment alone because the main factors (your words, not mine) are removed from the equation.
Fortunately for me I come from a family of physicians and have many long discussions on this subject with them on regular basis. To date not one has said anything other than that the literature for testosterone supplementation has not shown any uptick in prostate cancer. Although every man may be at risk- on steroids or not! One cousin, who is a urologist, has diagnosed 100's of men with prostate cancer. He stated that only a handful have been on supplemental testosterone and very few show signs of elevated testosterone levels. He assumes because the cause of prostrate cancer is unknown that these unlucky men had microscopic prostate cancer cells when they went on testosterone which accelerated the growth of the cancer cells that would have otherwise developed into the disease on their own.
Why would a normal male with normal testosterone levels be diagnosed with prostate cancer? While another male with elevated testosterone levels have no signs of prostate cancer? Simple; Testosterone is NOT the main factor in prostate cancer as you state.
I openly rebuke you for saying that I or any other contributing member of this thread has an agenda. It's time to face the truth of the matter- We obviously disagree, you fail to see the inaccuracy in your statements, and you are upset at me for pointing it out.
Someday you might be 100% correct in your assumptions concerning this matter but as of today you are not.
I am also sorry that you could not provide sufficient evidence concerning a greater benefit of combining IGF and GH other than an increase in insulin sensitivity because it simply proves that I blew a ton of money on something that I was previously told would be a waste of money. Shame on me.

With overpowering positive energy containing no hidden agendas,
SEMPER FI

Sciroxx · Sep 7, 2016

SemperFi said:


Sciroxx said:

Simple medline search will yield endless linkages between testosterone levels and prostate cancer, the treatment of prostate tumors is anti-testosterone/anti-dehydrotestosterone(which is a direct derivate of testosterone) whatsoever no one claimed that testosterone cause by itself the cancer, not at all ! it's obvious there are multiple parameter in role, some of them u mentioned. Same for breath cancer - first aid measure, and constant measure actually is an anti estrogen for a reason.Now dear brother - prostate (or breath) cancer is not my expertise, neither yours, I'm not sure why you're so eager to post on this matter on this thread, and more ever things which are simply not valid. This is the only forum to encounter such negative crowed reaction (by couple of guys with obvious agenda) when posting such valuable in So first, and you're probably aware to it, testosterone is the main factor in the most common cancer in males (prostate), same as estrogen is responsible on the most common cancer at women (breath cancer).

Click to expand...

I am eager to post on this matter because your are stating things concerning prostate cancer that are just not proven true. It certainly can be considered a mute issue by you but I am emphatical when it comes to requesting accurate information and unfortunately you are not the sole source of information in our free form forum. If you want to be the only source of information/opinion and dictate the direction of a a debate start a blog or an editorial page. Again your last sentence based on the known science is a fabrication in an attempt to prove an unprovable point. I have no idea what the main factor (but I did state an opinion on this) of prostate cancer is and neither does $300 million in annual research but for some strange reason you believe that you do.The suppression of testosterone in prostate patients and estrogen in breast cancer patients is simply removing the fuel from a fire that has been started by an unknown catalyst. Does hormone treatment that you stated cure the disease? In both diseases a cure remains very controversial. But based on your belief there should be no question that they are both curable with hormone treatment alone because the main factors (your words, not mine) are removed from the equation.Fortunately for me I come from a family of physicians and have many long discussions on this subject with them on regular basis. To date not one has said anything other than that the literature for testosterone supplementation has not shown any uptick in prostate cancer. Although every man may be at risk- on steroids or not! One cousin, who is a urologist, has diagnosed 100's of men with prostate cancer. He stated that only a handful have been on supplemental testosterone and very few show signs of elevated testosterone levels. He assumes because the cause of prostrate cancer is unknown that these unlucky men had microscopic prostate cancer cells when they went on testosterone which accelerated the growth of the cancer cells that would have otherwise developed into the disease on their own.Why would a normal male with normal testosterone levels be diagnosed with prostate cancer? While another male with elevated testosterone levels have no signs of prostate cancer? Simple; Testosterone is NOT the main factor in prostate cancer as you state.I openly rebuke you for saying that I or any other contributing member of this thread has an agenda. It's time to face the truth of the matter- We obviously disagree, you fail to see the inaccuracy in your statements, and you are upset at me for pointing it out.Someday you might be 100% correct in your assumptions concerning this matter but as of today you are not.I am also sorry that you could not provide sufficient evidence concerning a greater benefit of combining IGF and GH other than an increase in insulin sensitivity because it simply proves that I blew a ton of money on something that I was previously told would be a waste of money. Shame on me. With overpowering positive energy containing no hidden agendas,SEMPER FI

It's crystal clear that testosterone levels are one of the main factors whether in inducing or catalyzing prostate tumors of any kin, anyhow it was brought by chance as an example to the "propaganda of be aware this or that causes cancer" and has nothing to do with the subject or this section, so I officially state - first and above all you're right, second you're right, you're always right, and will be right for ever so help me god regarding prostate cancer, life and the universeNow it's clear that you love to listen to your self, but has never bothered to look at the sscientific literature and explanations I showed, but what freinds are for ?! so I'll repeat on it briefly for u -There is a distinct synergistic effect between IGF1 and GH, and experts endocrinologists experimented, tested, concluded and reported - In a nutshell there is a synergistic anabolic effect of GH and IGF1 as shown in increased protein synthesis in multiple tissues and additive increase in nitrogen balance,.IGF1 show distincy anti catabolic effects which GH doesn't posses as shows from reduced corticosteone levels and negating highly potent catabolic hormore on the articles below. There is multi paths metabolic synergistic benefits in combining GH and IGF concerning fat mobilization and usage, increased energy expenditure , and finally distinct balanced of insulin sensitivity not observed by other aids, at least not to such degreencbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9129466 GH and IGF-I combined further enhanced fat oxidation while reducing protein catabolism. Serum insulin concentrations were significantly increased by GH but decreased by IGF-I. GH significantly decreased serum total triiodothyronine concentrations and IGF-I significantly decreased serum corticosterone concentrations.=========================================ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10571453RESULTS: Administration of IGF-I, but not GH, attenuates dexamethasone-induced protein catabolism and increases insulin sensitivity. Simultaneous treatment with GH and IGF-I additively increases the serum concentration of IGF-I, whole-body anabolism, and lipid oxidation. GH or IGF-I when given alone produces similar increases in the serum concentration of IGF-I. However, GH selectively increases skeletal muscle mass whereas IGF-I selectively attenuates the intestinal atrophy and abnormal intestinal ion transport induced by TPN. These tissue-selective anabolic effects of GH and IGF-I are associated with differential increases in protein synthesis in skeletal muscle and jejunum, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous treatment with GH and IGF-I may offer the greatest clinical efficacy because of improved nitrogen retention in association with enhanced lipid oxidation and stimulation of protein synthesis in multiple tissue types. ============================================================================ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8853443 =================================== GH may exert metabolic effects either directly or indirectly through increased production of IGF-I. GH administration increases circulating IGF-I levels via stimulation of hepatic synthesis and secretion of IGF-I; it may also enhance local IGF-I synthesis, which exerts paracrine or autocrine effects. Figure 2 summarizes the metabolic effects of GH and IGF-I. Administration of GH and IGF-I in adult humans has been demonstrated to enhance protein anabolism. Combined administration of GH and IGF-I was observed to be more anabolic than either IGF-I or GH alone. Evidence is presented that protein accretion results mainly from direct effects of GH on tissues; additional indirect effects via IGF-I production are also likely. Administration of GH has been reported to produce carbohydrate intolerance with elevated plasma insulin levels, resulting from insulin resistance. in contrast, insulin sensitivity increased during administration of IGF-I, which exerts hypoglycaemic effects even with concomitant suppression of insulin secretion. A major direct metabolic effect of GH is to increase fat mobilization and oxidation, and thereby to reduce total body fat; there is no evidence that IGF-I acts directly on adipose tissue in vivo. GH administration results in sodium retention via stimulation of Na-K-ATPase. It is suggested that part of the effects of GH on tubular function (e.g. phosphate reabsorption) are mediated via IGF-I. Energy expenditure may be increased by administration of either GH or relatively high doses of IGF-I. One of the reasons for this phenomenon is an increase in lean body mass; GH may increase energy expenditure additionally be enhancing the production of T3 and by increasing lipid oxidation ===================================

strong · Sep 7, 2016

Your response to a valued member bothers me Scrioxx... Debate and disagreement is acceptable here but to be condescending about ALWAYS being right... Not too cool...

ruxgear · Sep 7, 2016

Sciroxx said:
 so I officially state - first and above all you're right, second you're right, you're always right, and will be right for ever so help me god regarding prostate cancer, life and the universe

X2 StrongSciroxx, That statement speaks volumes about your character and your actual purpose of being here. I happen to be a close personal friend of the member SEMPER FI and I have never known him to be a person that "needs" to be right. If anything he would happily give ground to an individual in the hopes that they discover there own truth. He certainly doesn't need me to defend him but I am a bit offended at the open nature of your personal attack.I can't comment on the scientific nature of the thread because of my lack of knowledge but I do hope you re access your attitudes and comments towards members in the future. Your business prospects will be much better for it.

GH, IGF1 and should I combine them ?

New member

Member

New member

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

METHODS:

RESULTS:

CONCLUSIONS:

Well-known member

Member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Member

ruxgear

Guest