igf lr3 question?

[alphaanimal]

will taking igf lr3 results differ taking them in the muscle as opposed to taking them sub q? ive been doing 200mcg sub q. at same time as taking 6units hgh not in same syringe in morning with bcaa's and glutamine shake.

[deadpan]

will taking igf lr3 results differ taking them in the muscle as opposed to taking them sub q? ive been doing 200mcg sub q. at same time as taking 6units hgh not in same syringe in morning with bcaa's and glutamine shake.

assuming your shit's real it probably will have more localized effects and absorb better if you do it IM. also don't do it near your stomach because you don't really want your organs absorbing too much IGF

[local hero]

igf should be shot IM, usualy into the muscle youve trained or about to train.... it does give you great pumps, not worth the money far as im concerned tho

[muscle19]

igf should be shot IM, usualy into the muscle youve trained or about to train.... it does give you great pumps, not worth the money far as im concerned tho

thats what I have felt, been wanting to try it but damn the price is high and i could just add more gh to my cycle lol 

[undead]

there is absolutely no difference between subQ and IM other than that IM will be active faster. it will go systemic either way. there is no way to localize the effects of igf-1 when it is injected and injecting into the muscle worked will have negligible benefit. it may hit a few receptors in the muscles before it reaches the bloodstream but thats it. it will go systemic.

the same goes for not injecting near the gut. its gonna go systemic and theres nothing you can do about it so it doesnt matter where or how you inject. IM, subQ, IV, the only difference is how long it takes to reach the bloodstream.

[deadpan]

there is absolutely no difference between subQ and IM other than that IM will be active faster. it will go systemic either way. there is no way to localize the effects of igf-1 when it is injected and injecting into the muscle worked will have negligible benefit. it may hit a few receptors in the muscles before it reaches the bloodstream but thats it. it will go systemic.

the same goes for not injecting near the gut. its gonna go systemic and theres nothing you can do about it so it doesnt matter where or how you inject. IM, subQ, IV, the only difference is how long it takes to reach the bloodstream.

i have read that many bodybuilders found injecting pgf-2 away from the stomach will lessen the stomach cramping effects, of course the half life of that compound is much shorter but i believe gh15 mentioned in one of his posts somewhere that scar tissue can affect systemic absorption quite a bit as well.

what advantage would there be to subq or iv anyways? or near the stomach?

[undead]

i have read that many bodybuilders found injecting pgf-2 away from the stomach will lessen the stomach cramping effects, of course the half life of that compound is much shorter but i believe gh15 mentioned in one of his posts somewhere that scar tissue can affect systemic absorption quite a bit as well.

what advantage would there be to subq or iv anyways? or near the stomach?

ive never heard of scar tissue having an effect on absorption. anything you inject will have systemic effects no matter how you inject it. ive never used pgf2 so i cant comment on it but maybe it was just a placebo effect?

there really isnt much to be gained for most substances. igf-lr3 has a long half life. it is specifically made for that purpose so it doesnt matter how you use it. there will be no difference between the injection methods. if you were using something like humalog, that would be a different story. it would still go systemic but if you do subQ it would take 15 minutes to hit the blood stream versus immediately if you did IV. subQ takes the longest to hit the blood, then IM, then IV.

if you really wanted to increase the local effect of igf-1 you could try doing multiple microinjection into the muscle. like maybe 2mcg in 25 evenly spaced spots. you would still have most of the hormone going systemic but it owuld hit a few more receptors. however the result would not be worth the time and cost of the needles lol.

[deadpan]

ive never heard of scar tissue having an effect on absorption. anything you inject will have systemic effects no matter how you inject it. ive never used pgf2 so i cant comment on it but maybe it was just a placebo effect?

there really isnt much to be gained for most substances. igf-lr3 has a long half life. it is specifically made for that purpose so it doesnt matter how you use it. there will be no difference between the injection methods. if you were using something like humalog, that would be a different story. it would still go systemic but if you do subQ it would take 15 minutes to hit the blood stream versus immediately if you did IV. subQ takes the longest to hit the blood, then IM, then IV.

if you really wanted to increase the local effect of igf-1 you could try doing multiple microinjection into the muscle. like maybe 2mcg in 25 evenly spaced spots. you would still have most of the hormone going systemic but it owuld hit a few more receptors. however the result would not be worth the time and cost of the needles lol.

fair enough, you think there perhaps might be a way to "hold" the compound in the muscle maybe by mixing it with seo or something like that? or would it just absorb the igf and keep the seo there?

[undead]

fair enough, you think there perhaps might be a way to "hold" the compound in the muscle maybe by mixing it with seo or something like that? or would it just absorb the igf and keep the seo there?

i doubt it would work with an seo but you could give it a shot. if you could get your hands on some igfBP(igf-1 binding protein) and inject that then it would stay into the muscle. the igf-1 would bind to the igfbp and the resulting complex would be too big to get through the endothelial tissue into the bloodstream. this is partly how GH works.

however there are two problems with this. one, igf-lr3 is engineered to have reduced affinity for the igfbp which is why it has increased potency. it would still go systemic. two, even if you were using actual igf-1 and not the lr3 isoform, the igfbp prevents it from binding to the receptor(thats its job). there still wouldnt be a whole lot of the igf-1 hitting the receptors.

so no theres not much you can do to keep it localized. all the effects people see from igf-1 are from it going systemic.