Author Topic: Insulin actual mechanism of growth is probably this, not "nutrient shuttling"  (Read 6362 times)

Van_Bilderass

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16646
  • "Don't Try"
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.

Yeah it doesn't matter in that situation. I haven't done enough reading to come to real conclusions on what is going on. In vitro Lantus has a high affinity for IGF receptors so in theory Lantus should lower GH and IGF but in diabetics it actually raises  IGF so either it has low affinity at the pituitary specifically or it causes better glycemic control which leads to GH surges. I don't know.

There is someone on this forum running MK-677, and while IGF rose a lot his BG is also creeping upwards and he was debating adding some Lantus. So it would be interesting to see if the addition of Lantus further enhances IGF.

I know there have been a bunch of guys on the forums running high doses of Lantus and some getting their IGF tested but I haven't been interested enough to know their results. In the real world knowing about all this stuff won't make a big difference so it's only mildly interesting :D
Bodybuilders will keep experimenting and keeping what works and discarding what doesn't.

pupil B

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 21

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.

This is completely false, look up the concept of competitive inhibitors. A higher affinity compound (or the natural one that is a "perfect fit") being present does not somehow prevent the lower affinity one from binding at all. If this was true almost no drugs at all in existence would work, only giving people the natural substances (like testosterone) would work... any relative difference in affinities, even massive ones, can be overcome through one substance outcompeting another.

harmankardon1

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3097
Yeah it doesn't matter in that situation. I haven't done enough reading to come to real conclusions on what is going on. In vitro Lantus has a high affinity for IGF receptors so in theory Lantus should lower GH and IGF but in diabetics it actually raises  IGF so either it has low affinity at the pituitary specifically or it causes better glycemic control which leads to GH surges. I don't know.

There is someone on this forum running MK-677, and while IGF rose a lot his BG is also creeping upwards and he was debating adding some Lantus. So it would be interesting to see if the addition of Lantus further enhances IGF.

I know there have been a bunch of guys on the forums running high doses of Lantus and some getting their IGF tested but I haven't been interested enough to know their results. In the real world knowing about all this stuff won't make a big difference so it's only mildly interesting :D
Bodybuilders will keep experimenting and keeping what works and discarding what doesn't.

Yeah your right, that mk677 especially would be interesting....

harmankardon1

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3097
This is completely false, look up the concept of competitive inhibitors. A higher affinity compound (or the natural one that is a "perfect fit") being present does not somehow prevent the lower affinity one from binding at all. If this was true almost no drugs at all in existence would work, only giving people the natural substances (like testosterone) would work... any relative difference in affinities, even massive ones, can be overcome through one substance outcompeting another.

I've got a degree in molecular cell biology, basics of competitive inhibition is a first year subject. Let me try explain to you where your misunderstanding here.

A drug works to competitively inhibit via binding the active binding site on a given receptor, this prevents the normal hormone substrate from binding it's active site, simple enough. What I think you are trying to argue is that in drug use etc when the concentration of the drug (inhibitor) is greater than that of the normal substrate it will bind at a greater rate therefore achieving greater levels of inhibition.

What you miss here is that chemical inhibitors (your average drug) are very small chemical molecules much much smaller than a protein, with a very basic one dimensional structure, that align electrochemically to only to a small specific area of the protein receptor at the active site, thus they can have a great affinity to that site and outcompete the much larger more complex natural protein hormone.

In the case we are speaking of here we are talking about much larger more complex molecules, proteins (insulin and igf proteins) Protein structure is much more complex with four stages of structure (you have probably covered tertiary quaternary etc) this means that these molecules affinity for each other's receptors active sites is much more regulated by their structures, much more than a tiny chemical (typical drug) that can bind freely to a receptor active site and easily outcompete the natural hormone due to its simplicity in structure, an advantage that the less than optimised insulin does not have over igf proteins when binding the igf receptors.

So as I said the structural optimisation of the igf hormone for its receptor in addition to its very high concentrations in pro bodybuilders will likely negate the great majority off target binding of insulin to igf receptors, there will still be some binding but the degree to which this occurs will likely be drastically reduced for these reasons.

ProudVirgin69

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7881
  • hardcore redneck electric champion
I have heard taking "slin" around workouts gives one the craziest pump

I remember taking it once and getting a crippling forearm pump from squeezing the handles on the leg press :D

pupil B

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 21
I've got a degree in molecular cell biology, basics of competitive inhibition is a first year subject. Let me try explain to you where your misunderstanding here.

A drug works to competitively inhibit via binding the active binding site on a given receptor, this prevents the normal hormone substrate from binding it's active site, simple enough. What I think you are trying to argue is that in drug use etc when the concentration of the drug (inhibitor) is greater than that of the normal substrate it will bind at a greater rate therefore achieving greater levels of inhibition.

What you miss here is that chemical inhibitors (your average drug) are very small chemical molecules much much smaller than a protein, with a very basic one dimensional structure, that align electrochemically to only to a small specific area of the protein receptor at the active site, thus they can have a great affinity to that site and outcompete the much larger more complex natural protein hormone.

In the case we are speaking of here we are talking about much larger more complex molecules, proteins (insulin and igf proteins) Protein structure is much more complex with four stages of structure (you have probably covered tertiary quaternary etc) this means that these molecules affinity for each other's receptors active sites is much more regulated by their structures, much more than a tiny chemical (typical drug) that can bind freely to a receptor active site and easily outcompete the natural hormone due to its simplicity in structure, an advantage that the less than optimised insulin does not have over igf proteins when binding the igf receptors.

So as I said the structural optimisation of the igf hormone for its receptor in addition to its very high concentrations in pro bodybuilders will likely negate the great majority off target binding of insulin to igf receptors, there will still be some binding but the degree to which this occurs will likely be drastically reduced for these reasons.

There is no way inhibitors must arbitrarily be small... it is very very typical for agonists or antagonists to have a structure almost identical to the original substance for the very reasons you stated, the complexity of receptors overall structure, obviously disregarding ones that bind to regulatory sites (as in other than the one the original substance binds to) on a protein such as allosteric sites.

In fact go look up acetylcholinesterase inhibitors... they are much larger/bulkier than acetylcholine itself... structural optimization is simply another word for... wait for it... "AFFINITY"

There are many substances in existence with higher affinities for given receptors than the original/intended substance. Take trenbolone for example, studies in rats show it binds to androgen receptors in rat prostates with 5x as much affinity as testosterone. Which btw is what androgenic ratings for steroids mean. Like trenbolones rating of "500" is relative to testosterones base affinity that they used for androgen receptor binding in rats, or "100". If something binds rat prostate androgen receptors with 5x as much affinity as testosterone, it's given a 500. If it's 1/5, then it's given 20, so on and so forth. (I am not saying this in regards to what you're saying about the original substance being a "perfect fit" for it's receptor... simply untrue)

harmankardon1

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3097
There is no way inhibitors must arbitrarily be small... it is very very typical for agonists or antagonists to have a structure almost identical to the original substance for the very reasons you stated, the complexity of receptors overall structure, obviously disregarding ones that bind to regulatory sites (as in other than the one the original substance binds to) on a protein such as allosteric sites.

In fact go look up acetylcholinesterase inhibitors... they are much larger/bulkier than acetylcholine itself... structural optimization is simply another word for... wait for it... "AFFINITY"

There are many substances in existence with higher affinities for given receptors than the original/intended substance. Take trenbolone for example, studies in rats show it binds to androgen receptors in rat prostates with 5x as much affinity as testosterone. Which btw is what androgenic ratings for steroids mean. Like trenbolones rating of "500" is relative to testosterones base affinity that they used for androgen receptor binding in rats, or "100". If something binds rat prostate androgen receptors with 5x as much affinity as testosterone, it's given a 500. If it's 1/5, then it's given 20, so on and so forth. (I am not saying this in regards to what you're saying about the original substance being a "perfect fit" for it's receptor... simply untrue)

Have you ever used bioinformatics resources?

What year are you?

pupil B

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 21
Have you ever used bioinformatics resources?

have you considered you are saying things that do not make any sense... a college degree does not make one an expert in something.

i am a medical student i am not in college... we have been covering pharmacology and biochemistry surprisingly in depth...

harmankardon1

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3097
have you considered you are saying things that do not make any sense... a college degree does not make one an expert in something.

i am a medical student i am not in college... we have been covering pharmacology and biochemistry surprisingly in depth...

I'm a part of a research team that maps protein structure via x Ray crystallography.... So I am well informed.

My sister is a MD, there is not a great need for medical doctors to have a deep understanding of cell signalling so the teaching level is in accordance (single subject study).

Arguing about competitive inhibition generally is just ego bullshit and off from the topic at hand, I've made my points on insulin and igf and given my thoughts on the subject, you think what I have said makes no sense, that's okay with me.

Cheers.

pupil B

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 21
I'm a part of a research team that maps protein structure via x Ray crystallography.... So I am well informed.

My sister is a MD, there is not a great need for medical doctors to have a deep understanding of cell signalling so the teaching level is in accordance (single subject study).

Arguing about competitive inhibition generally is just ego bullshit and off from the topic at hand, I've made my points on insulin and igf and given my thoughts on the subject, you think what I have said makes no sense, that's okay with me.

Cheers.

I said specific things you said made no sense like antagonists having to be very small, and the natural ligand being a perfect fit for receptors, because that makes no sense and made you come across as not knowing what you were talking about in this context. I was not addressing your points specifically

cheers

willl

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
i like your skepticism and the way you approach this, pupil

willl

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
Well, take a look at this article.


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


i took the time to read the whole article
a lot of great info on there, excellent find

illuminati

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24567
  • The Strongest Shall Survive.- - Lest we Forget.
i took the time to read the whole article
a lot of great info on there, excellent find

So did I - And
No doubt we’ll have several pro calibre Physiques & at least 1 Mr Olympia
Winner on here with that information.

Endocrine Pharmacology & In Fact all the Biological actions is Fascinating,
How our Bodies do what they do is Outstanding.

pupil B

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 21
i like your skepticism and the way you approach this, pupil

I am skeptical about everything, being biased is pointless. I don't care to flaunt my cock trying to be "right", I just wanna find out what is actually right, generally speaking.

edit: in fact i really don't ever want to touch insulin ever, lol. I tried it once at I think 30iu fast acting post workout while on 8iu hgh for two? weeks at most, and eh. The recovery and fullness was absolutely retarded but after reading a lot about it on here, I don't want to get a gigantic gut and fuck up my physique in other ways, and I simply don't have the time or will to base my eating so much around insulin and having to inject it so much.

willl

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
So did I - And
No doubt we’ll have several pro calibre Physiques & at least 1 Mr Olympia
Winner on here with that information.

Endocrine Pharmacology & In Fact all the Biological actions is Fascinating,
How our Bodies do what they do is Outstanding.

no doubt, but the article provides another insight (new for me) on insulin (outside of bbing) and i appreciate that kind of information


pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
I am skeptical about everything, being biased is pointless. I don't care to flaunt my cock trying to be "right", I just wanna find out what is actually right, generally speaking.

edit: in fact i really don't ever want to touch insulin ever, lol. I tried it once at I think 30iu fast acting post workout while on 8iu hgh for two? weeks at most, and eh. The recovery and fullness was absolutely retarded but after reading a lot about it on here, I don't want to get a gigantic gut and fuck up my physique in other ways, and I simply don't have the time or will to base my eating so much around insulin and having to inject it so much.

How many carbs did you eat after injecting that much insulin? I think the gut comes from abuse. Milos never had a gut and Wolf would get some off season distension but never a full on bubble gut and I think it was stated that he use insulin every day with every meal.

willl

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
30iu fast acting for your first shot ever? or did you build that up...?


pupil B

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 21
I ate uhh I think 210g carbs and I did one or two 10iu shots first to get a feel for it then went to 30. Was doing 7g carbs/iu. I didn't personally experience bad sides or anything but it's too much of a pain in the ass for me to use consistently (timing it injecting it and eating/drinking the specific food with it every day or multiple times is annoying). Plus I want to avoid potential gut like I said.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
I ate uhh I think 210g carbs and I did one or two 10iu shots first to get a feel for it then went to 30. Was doing 7g carbs/iu. I didn't personally experience bad sides or anything but it's too much of a pain in the ass for me to use consistently (timing it injecting it and eating/drinking the specific food with it every day or multiple times is annoying). Plus I want to avoid potential gut like I said.

I always thought the 10 grams per iu was a bit much. Do you think it makes sense as Milos stated about using insulin just prior to training with enough dextrose and aminos, creatine sipped during training to shuttle more nutrients into the muscle at a time when it is getting the most blood supply.

willl

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
I always thought the 10 grams per iu was a bit much. Do you think it makes sense as Milos stated about using insulin just prior to training with enough dextrose and aminos, creatine sipped during training to shuttle more nutrients into the muscle at a time when it is getting the most blood supply.

 ;D

harmankardon1

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3097
I am skeptical about everything, being biased is pointless. I don't care to flaunt my cock trying to be "right", I just wanna find out what is actually right, generally speaking.

edit: in fact i really don't ever want to touch insulin ever, lol. I tried it once at I think 30iu fast acting post workout while on 8iu hgh for two? weeks at most, and eh. The recovery and fullness was absolutely retarded but after reading a lot about it on here, I don't want to get a gigantic gut and fuck up my physique in other ways, and I simply don't have the time or will to base my eating so much around insulin and having to inject it so much.

If this was true you wouldn't be hammering your angle on this like you are somehow in the know, after a brief question to a phD and doing one pharmacology subject, you think you reinvented the wheel... Lol.

Rookie  :D

pupil B

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 21
I always thought the 10 grams per iu was a bit much. Do you think it makes sense as Milos stated about using insulin just prior to training with enough dextrose and aminos, creatine sipped during training to shuttle more nutrients into the muscle at a time when it is getting the most blood supply.

I mean I guess the basic premise makes sense but I cant claim to know how much specifically of a difference that one protocol would make over another. I doubt it would be noticeable given at that level, everyone’s on so much of everything under the sun anyway, but again that’s just personal conjecture with no basis.

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
You’re worse than fucking Matt.

 ;D ;D ;D

I'm starting to think the scientific method is worse than me.  How the fuck can we have something like insulin that we apparently know so much about and yet not even understand its mechanism for growth?  ???

I understand it hasn't been primarily researched in that area, but regardless - you'd think science would be more settled on this...