Insulin actual mechanism of growth is probably this, not "nutrient shuttling"

[Van_Bilderass]

You can, this is well established medical fact.... If you couldn't type two diabetics would all die from the condition.

I don't think you have a great understanding here.

willl can correct me if misunderstood, but I think he is talking about what I meant by putting a band-aid on insulin resistance. Adding more insulin to an insulin resistant state doesn't reduce the resistance, it likely makes it worse. Obviously. Fixing insulin resistance is done by not bombarding the cells with glucose and insulin constantly. Endogenous insulin is increased by GH use too, but it's not enough sometimes to keep BG in check. Here exogenous insulin can help protect your organs but in the long term it's hardly an ideal situation.

[harmankardon1]

Yep I see what your saying, of course insulin resistance cannot be treated itself by adding more insulin, the elevated blood glucose caused by the resistance to endogenously produced insulin can be treated by adding exogenous insulin.

In cases where we consider health, such as type 2 diabetes, it is the elevated blood glucose that drives the diseases these people experience, much more so than elevated insulin levels.. That's why type 2 patients may need to add insulin to control their BGL, this has a positive health effect in these patients.

[Van_Bilderass]

Yep I see what your saying, of course insulin resistance cannot be treated itself by adding more insulin, the elevated blood glucose caused by the resistance to endogenously produced insulin can be treated by adding exogenous insulin.

In cases where we consider health, such as type 2 diabetes, it is the elevated blood glucose that drives the diseases these people experience, much more so than elevated insulin levels.. That's why type 2 patients may need to add insulin to control their BGL, this has a positive health effect in these patients.

Yes it's the glucose that can be directly toxic, not the insulin. 20 years ago Milos said that insulin use could protect people from disease and diabetes itself, by protecting the pancreas and most were like wtf is he saying? But he had somewhat of a point in certain situations. I know a few years ago there was debate in the medical community on whether it might be a good idea to put some type 2s on insulin sooner instead of persisting with the oral agents. I haven't followed the debate so I don't know what the cutting edge is nowadays.

[willl]

willl can correct me if misunderstood, but I think he is talking about what I meant by putting a band-aid on insulin resistance. Adding more insulin to an insulin resistant state doesn't reduce the resistance, it likely makes it worse. Obviously. Fixing insulin resistance is done by not bombarding the cells with glucose and insulin constantly. Endogenous insulin is increased by GH use too, but it's not enough sometimes to keep BG in check. Here exogenous insulin can help protect your organs but in the long term it's hardly an ideal situation.

^^
btw type 2 can be dealt with (cured) very efficiently without any meds at all

[willl]

I think the main beneficial effects of insulin from a bodybuilder's POV is the water volumization, simply a cosmetic effect, which is no small thing for a competitive bb. Anyone who has used it knows you can put on a bunch of pounds overnight and it goes away just as fast when you stop. It's like filling a balloon with water.

What many don't know about insulin is the main mechanism behind the blood glucose lowering effect, and it may be worth knowing. It is not by opening up the cells so they accept glucose. Insulin stops glucose release from the liver. From what I remember reading diabetics who skip their insulin keep storing glucose but since there is no break to stop liver glucose production BG skyrockets.

agree on the water
i didnt know the liver release part of insulin mechanism, interesting, thanks

[willl]

So yeah, maybe "nutrient shuttling" isn't the major reason it seems to "work" for bodybuilders.

without this nutrient shuttling (glucose primarily), there would be no exceptional water retention within the muscle, don't you think?

[pupil B]

thanks pupil, i got the idea now

but to me it doesn't resonate with the claims you made first
"insulin is not the reason for larger muscle through nutrient shuttling"

insulin is (in great part) responsible for shuttling nutrients in muscle cells
the texts and info you provided offer additional information as to what else is or can be done with insulin when it's "spilling over"
and that's good stuff, so thanks

I mean again IMO whether it's one mechanism or the other basically boils down to anyones speculation, it just simply makes more sense in my head that this is responsible for more growth than the nutrient shuttling thing, not that the nutrient shuttling is useless. My main point was simply to get the idea out there like you said, not really argue that nutrient shuttling in itself is useless. I don't know either way (no one does). My goal was to introduce the fact that there is another pathway for growth besides the nutrient shuttling and to get people talking about it. It is ONLY my personal opinion that it seems to make more sense that the IGF-1 receptor binding plays a greater part, I am not claiming otherwise. That is why I want people to get the idea and research/think about it and discuss it, so maybe we can get to the bottom of this.

EDIT: God damn it is so weird to be posting here and seeing all these famous old names posting in my thread, after reading old getbig gh15 era threads for years and years... Van bilderass and pellius posting in my thread, who would have imagined.

[ProudVirgin69]

From what I remember reading diabetics who skip their insulin keep storing glucose but since there is no break to stop liver glucose production BG skyrockets.

The rest of your posts are good but I had to nitpick with this statement here -  Most of the body's cells require insulin for glucose uptake.  Diabetics who dont take their insulin go into ketosis because the glucose is unable to be utilized

[Van_Bilderass]

The rest of your posts are good but I had to nitpick with this statement here -  Most of the body's cells require insulin for glucose uptake.  Diabetics who dont take their insulin go into ketosis because the glucose is unable to be utilized

Well, take a look at this article.


https://bjanaesthesia.org/article/S0007-0912(17)37337-3/fulltext

Current dogma would have us believe that administration of insulin to somebody with severely deranged diabetes suddenly and miraculously allows the cells in the body to breathe again and be restored to their former healthy state.

...

Indeed, rather than stimulating glucose uptake in tissues such as muscle, insulin in fact reduces glucose uptake. This is because the main factor driving glucose uptake is the ‘mass action’ effect of hyperglycaemia and the concentration gradient between the extracellular and intracellular glucose concentrations. Glucose transporters are not rate limiting under these conditions, even in the face of severe insulin deficiency.
...

Insulin produced an immediate reduction of 50% in hepatic glucose production (Ra); this was the only change leading to the decrease in glucose during the low-dose study.

...

The results are very much in keeping with Schafer's concept of a primary role of insulin in regulating blood glucose concentration through control of hepatic glucose storage
 

If you have some issue or comment on what the authors claim let me know. I didn't really read it very closely but they claim that insulin's main action wrt to BG is the hepatic effect like I said.

I mean again IMO whether it's one mechanism or the other basically boils down to anyones speculation, it just simply makes more sense in my head that this is responsible for more growth than the nutrient shuttling thing, not that the nutrient shuttling is useless. My main point was simply to get the idea out there like you said, not really argue that nutrient shuttling in itself is useless. I don't know either way (no one does). My goal was to introduce the fact that there is another pathway for growth besides the nutrient shuttling and to get people talking about it. It is ONLY my personal opinion that it seems to make more sense that the IGF-1 receptor binding plays a greater part, I am not claiming otherwise. That is why I want people to get the idea and research/think about it and discuss it, so maybe we can get to the bottom of this.

EDIT: God damn it is so weird to be posting here and seeing all these famous old names posting in my thread, after reading old getbig gh15 era threads for years and years... Van bilderass and pellius posting in my thread, who would have imagined.

The insulin/igf-1 connection has been talked about for decades in these circles. Not only the cross-reactivity but the fact that insulin can elevate endogenous igf-1. Apparently there seems to be a difference between different synthetic insulins in their ability to stimulate igf-1. From what I remember Lantus was supposed to be particularly effective. More igf-1 is likely beneficial for muscle growth but guys are putting on tons of weight on it very quickly and that can only be due to water shifts.

^^
btw type 2 can be dealt with (cured) very efficiently without any meds at all

Sure, just losing weight could cure a type 2. Of course only few patients are ready for a radical lifestyle change even in the face of severe health issues so damage control becomes important. Shit, I work with a dude who is even too lazy to take his Metformin.

[JuicedKangaroo]

This is shaping up to be a great thread, I much prefer this to the boring political baiting spewed in this board. Great posts Van_Bilderass.

[joswift]

its amazing, all this science ant yet 99.9% of the people who use it look like shit...

[JuicedKangaroo]

its amazing, all this science ant yet 99.9% of the people who use it look like shit...

Because meat heads don't care for understanding and leveraging the science! 

[illuminati]

its amazing, all this science ant yet 99.9% of the people who use it look like shit...

How very True.
Then the same can be said for the vast majority using Steroids & or GH.

How many lads do we Here in the gym talking about what there taking or going to take
To Get HUGE & RIPPED - Yet very very few do.
Look how they Train or Rather Don’t Train & Their lives outside of the Gym.

If They Concerned Themselves Less with Taking this & that & Just Got On with some simple
Basic exercises, Worked hard at them, Food & Rest.
Just Keep it Simple.

[Van_Bilderass]

its amazing, all this science ant yet 99.9% of the people who use it look like shit...

Sure most who use it look like shit, but then again most who use steroids also look like shit. Or GH or anything.
To be honest, there isn't that much science actually in our hobby, the really sharp minds are few and far between. Even I can see that, and I only give half a shit about all this stuff.

Anyway, yesterday I did a google on the Lantus/IGF-1 connection I've seen mentioned in the past, and from my 10 second glance at an abstract it appears as though the reason Lantus is thought to enhance IGF-1 levels is because Lantus has *low* affinity for IGF-1 receptors. Insulins which have higher affinity will *lower* IGF-1 as well as GH. Makes sense right? So would a bodybuilder want to use an insulin with high affinity in megadoses as sort of a poor man's IGF-1 or something like Lantus which may increase endogenous IGF? Ultimately I think this mechanism is probably not behind most benefits bodybuilders feel from it so it probably doesn't matter.
Seems like IGF-1 use isn't that popular anymore, most just noticed better pumps and vascularity. Part of it may be because the doses of the research chems are too low but even those who were able to use Increlex noticed it wasn't magic.

My training partner back in like 98 or 99 got ahold of one or two milligrams of LR3 from a scientist at a university and he told me it put 20lbs of muscle on him overnight. He was like 320lbs lean but even back then I told him it probably wasn't the IGF-1 that did it, it was probably the insulin he started at the same time But it was hard to get and extremely expensive so he thought it was magic 

[illuminati]

Sure most who use it look like shit, but then again most who use steroids also look like shit. Or GH or anything.
To be honest, there isn't that much science actually in our hobby, the really sharp minds are few and far between. Even I can see that, and I only give half a shit about all this stuff.

Anyway, yesterday I did a google on the Lantus/IGF-1 connection I've seen mentioned in the past, and from my 10 second glance at an abstract it appears as though the reason Lantus is thought to enhance IGF-1 levels is because Lantus has *low* affinity for IGF-1 receptors. Insulins which have higher affinity will *lower* IGF-1 as well as GH. Makes sense right? So would a bodybuilder want to use an insulin with high affinity in megadoses as sort of a poor man's IGF-1 or something like Lantus which may increase endogenous IGF? Ultimately I think this mechanism is probably not behind most benefits bodybuilders feel from it so it probably doesn't matter.
Seems like IGF-1 use isn't that popular anymore, most just noticed better pumps and vascularity. Part of it may be because the doses of the research chems are too low but even those who were able to use Increlex noticed it wasn't magic.

My training partner back in like 98 or 99 got ahold of one or two milligrams of LR3 from a scientist at a university and he told me it put 20lbs of muscle on him overnight. He was like 320lbs lean but even back then I told him it probably wasn't the IGF-1 that did it, it was probably the insulin he started at the same time But it was hard to get and extremely expensive so he thought it was magic 

Why use all these PEDs to look like Crap. ( not saying you do )
Why not just have a clean diet & Simple & Effective Training routine
And look much better being lean & Muscular.
If all the parameters aren’t in check & Of a reasonably low body fat it’s to damn hard
To know what’s doing what. Just Guess work.
I’m not bothered with working with / helping anyone that’s fat & has a Shotgun approach
To what they do & Take.

[Van_Bilderass]

Why use all these PEDs to look like Crap. ( not saying you do )
Why not just have a clean diet & Simple & Effective Training routine
And look much better being lean & Muscular.
If all the parameters aren’t in check & Of a reasonably low body fat it’s to damn hard
To know what’s doing what. Just Guess work.
I’m not bothered with working with / helping anyone that’s fat & has a Shotgun approach
To what they do & Take.

I look like absolute shit, always did really. I just find this stuff mildly interesting for whatever reason. I don't do a lot of gear anymore. HRT for the most part.

I don't know how far you got in bodybuilding and what you have taken but I'm guessing there's been plenty of gear use Have you used insulin? GH? Tren? IGF-1?
Guys here think even Mr Olympias are absolute retards for taking so many drugs, so how stupid are all of us who are virtual nobodies? We all have our reasons, as stupid as they may seem to everyone else.

[dj181]

I look like absolute shit, always did really. I just find this stuff mildly interesting for whatever reason. I don't do a lot of gear anymore. HRT for the most part.

I don't know how far you got in bodybuilding and what you have taken but I'm guessing there's been plenty of gear use Have you used insulin? GH? Tren? IGF-1?
Guys here think even Mr Olympias are absolute retards for taking so many drugs, so how stupid are all of us who are virtual nobodies? We all have our reasons, as stupid as they may seem to everyone else.

I really doubt you look like absolute shit

Maybe not a high calibre look but I bet you looked moderately decent

And do you agree that certain fellas respond differently to different compounds? For example one can respond very well to say deca but have near zero response to anadrol, and if so why is this? (Assuming all gear taken is legit and not bunk)

[Van_Bilderass]

I really doubt you look like absolute shit

Maybe not a high calibre look but I bet you looked moderately decent

And do you agree that certain fellas respond differently to different compounds? For example one can respond very well to say deca but have near zero response to anadrol, and if so why is this? (Assuming all gear taken is legit and not bunk)

Different guys definitely respond differently to drugs, but I would probably say it's more that some don't seem to get much out of any steroid. Or maybe some just don't have the number of muscle fibers or nice muscle bellies genetically to begin with, so even if the response is what could be expected the end result is still a relatively crap physique. Just a little bigger. Some may look so good naturally with full muscle bellies and so on that even a modest response makes them look like a million bucks.

Of course different guys could have different responses to specific drugs and everyone has their favorites. But let's say someone gets little out of say Dianabol, how likely is it he will respond like crazy to another steroid? Or if you don't get much of anything out of test, how likely is it that you will blow up on Deca? I mean most pros stacks probably look fairly similar. Like test as a baseline. It always seems to "work" as expected.

Anadrol is actually a funny case. Some say they don't always feel it and others think it's "instant muscle" as Duchaine said. I don't know why that is. I thought it was shit the first times I tried it, thought maybe it was all fake. Later on I liked it. The best for strength out of all steroids.

Just some thoughts.

[illuminati]

I look like absolute shit, always did really. I just find this stuff mildly interesting for whatever reason. I don't do a lot of gear anymore. HRT for the most part.

I don't know how far you got in bodybuilding and what you have taken but I'm guessing there's been plenty of gear use Have you used insulin? GH? Tren? IGF-1?
Guys here think even Mr Olympias are absolute retards for taking so many drugs, so how stupid are all of us who are virtual nobodies? We all have our reasons, as stupid as they may seem to everyone else.

I’ve used AAS . I’ve worked with many that have used GH / Insulin.
I won 2 British Powerlifting Champs Before using anything - More Fool Me.!!
Then swapped over To Bodybuilding & competing for U.K. & Doing Very Well again
On a National Level - Yes I used AAS.

My point was that all these Wonderful exotic Drugs aren’t Necessary to Have a Decent
Physique- No we can’t all be Mr U.K. / Sweden But we can look half decent with diet & Training.
If looking like a Blob / Fat Bulky Man is where their at - How & why waste good Money on
What are Supposedly Physique Enhancing Drugs - When No Enhancement is Visible.

Then again to each there own - If It Makes Them Happy.
You can afford them & want to use them that’s fine by Me.

[pellius]

Sure most who use it look like shit, but then again most who use steroids also look like shit. Or GH or anything.
To be honest, there isn't that much science actually in our hobby, the really sharp minds are few and far between. Even I can see that, and I only give half a shit about all this stuff.

Anyway, yesterday I did a google on the Lantus/IGF-1 connection I've seen mentioned in the past, and from my 10 second glance at an abstract it appears as though the reason Lantus is thought to enhance IGF-1 levels is because Lantus has *low* affinity for IGF-1 receptors. Insulins which have higher affinity will *lower* IGF-1 as well as GH. Makes sense right? So would a bodybuilder want to use an insulin with high affinity in megadoses as sort of a poor man's IGF-1 or something like Lantus which may increase endogenous IGF? Ultimately I think this mechanism is probably not behind most benefits bodybuilders feel from it so it probably doesn't matter.
Seems like IGF-1 use isn't that popular anymore, most just noticed better pumps and vascularity. Part of it may be because the doses of the research chems are too low but even those who were able to use Increlex noticed it wasn't magic.

My training partner back in like 98 or 99 got ahold of one or two milligrams of LR3 from a scientist at a university and he told me it put 20lbs of muscle on him overnight. He was like 320lbs lean but even back then I told him it probably wasn't the IGF-1 that did it, it was probably the insulin he started at the same time But it was hard to get and extremely expensive so he thought it was magic  

If insulin, at varying levels, lowers gh/igf, why was it that when I was given an insulin sensitivity test there was an inverse relationship between when I was injected with insulin which immediately lowered blood glucose levels my gh level went up. And when I was injected with dextrose my gh level immediately began to drop.

Since it seems that low blood sugar is one the mechanism that stimulates gh production why would it be that insulin, in any form, would lower gh production?

[tres_taco_combo]

I have heard taking "slin" around workouts gives one the craziest pump

[pellius]

I have heard taking "slin" around workouts gives one the craziest pump

Well, hopefully not just slin. Need some dextrose to keep from passing out. And, as Milos recommends, all those predigested nutrients being shuttled into the muscles from the blood flow due to the workout. That's what gives you the pump. Through in some Viagra or Cialis and watch the veins bulge.

[Van_Bilderass]

If insulin, at varying levels, lowers gh/igf, why was it that when I was given an insulin sensitivity test there was an inverse relationship between when I was injected with insulin which immediately lowered blood glucose levels my gh level went up. And when I was injected with dextrose my gh level immediately began to drop.

Since it seems that low blood sugar is one the mechanism that stimulates gh production why would it be that insulin, in any form, would lower gh production?

I would guess that while acute hypoglycemia increases GH some long acting insulins in diabetics show a trend of lowered IGF-1 over time due to your body thinking there is a lot of IGF-1 around. In the abstract I glanced at they asked whether this GH lowering effect might be beneficial in a diabetic context. So insulin can do both.

[harmankardon1]

Sure most who use it look like shit, but then again most who use steroids also look like shit. Or GH or anything.
To be honest, there isn't that much science actually in our hobby, the really sharp minds are few and far between. Even I can see that, and I only give half a shit about all this stuff.

Anyway, yesterday I did a google on the Lantus/IGF-1 connection I've seen mentioned in the past, and from my 10 second glance at an abstract it appears as though the reason Lantus is thought to enhance IGF-1 levels is because Lantus has *low* affinity for IGF-1 receptors. Insulins which have higher affinity will *lower* IGF-1 as well as GH. Makes sense right? So would a bodybuilder want to use an insulin with high affinity in megadoses as sort of a poor man's IGF-1 or something like Lantus which may increase endogenous IGF? Ultimately I think this mechanism is probably not behind most benefits bodybuilders feel from it so it probably doesn't matter.
Seems like IGF-1 use isn't that popular anymore, most just noticed better pumps and vascularity. Part of it may be because the doses of the research chems are too low but even those who were able to use Increlex noticed it wasn't magic.

My training partner back in like 98 or 99 got ahold of one or two milligrams of LR3 from a scientist at a university and he told me it put 20lbs of muscle on him overnight. He was like 320lbs lean but even back then I told him it probably wasn't the IGF-1 that did it, it was probably the insulin he started at the same time But it was hard to get and extremely expensive so he thought it was magic  

When they say "affinity" they are talking about how much of a molecular connection the hormone (eg lantus) has for the particular receptor (the receptor is located on the cell surface and transmits, via a binding induced shape change to its hormone, a signal that activates it's function within the cell [eg glucose uptake through the cell membrane])... The reason insulin and the igf hormones have this interplay between each other's receptors is because they have similar molecular structures..

If lantus has a lower affinity for the igf receptors this does not mean it's use will enhance igf production it only means lantus off target binding to igf receptor will be reduced and that extra igf activation is not there...

Lantus or whatever insulin cannot preferentially bind the igf receptors over igf itself (when igf is present), this is because the igf is the perfect molecular "fit" for its receptor, whereas insulin sort of fits the igf receptors due to the structural similarity. This is my main point from earlier in the thread, if igf is super high due to gh use or igf use (as it is in all pro bodybuilders) the off target effects of insulin binding the igf receptors are nullified, insignificant.

[harmankardon1]

I would guess that while acute hypoglycemia increases GH some long acting insulins in diabetics show a trend of lowered IGF-1 over time due to your body thinking there is a lot of IGF-1 around. In the abstract I glanced at they asked whether this GH lowering effect might be beneficial in a diabetic context. So insulin can do both.

This is a good question for non bodybuilders, how potent is the insulin in activating the igf negative feedback loop by binding the igf receptor?

but as I mentioned in the other posts, in a bodybuilder that is using a heap of gh igf it doesn't matter as the body's own production is meaningless.