He’s definitely not pushing it on to me, we’ve came to the conclusion based of everything being very locked in and where I’m at right now with my goals, I’ve never planned on staying natty in the first place not saying there’s not anything from milking that out as long term as possible. I understand the benefits and cons of doing both, staying natty and not using things to replace hormones in general is gonna be safer long term ofc. I respect ur response though and ppl like u and @thinkalot, actually make me think more into it not really changing my view ofc bc im quite sure and set in my way tbh. But its much more respectable then others…
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Post up your Natty IGF-1 Level
- Thread starter malfeasance
- Start date
songsofpyramids
Member
Stfu you whiny know nothing dweeb. You’ve derailed this conversation enough with your stupid bs. No one cares what you respect. Fuck off to another thread.
Ateam2023
Member
and HOW DARE YOU,, talk shit about a nice pair of titties as is on @songsofpyramids pfp,, Ffs man thats sacrilege,,
Elektrobot
Member
Just starting to get my virgin baseline blood results back
Just turned 48
igf 135 ng/ml @ 26 estradiol pg/ml
I started 2IU of GH every night the day I had my blood draw done. Went up to 3IU after 5 days and started to get sore wrists. Went back down to 2 for a while.
Just turned 48
igf 135 ng/ml @ 26 estradiol pg/ml
I started 2IU of GH every night the day I had my blood draw done. Went up to 3IU after 5 days and started to get sore wrists. Went back down to 2 for a while.
Last edited:
Bump the dose up slowly. I took a break from HGH, took 2iu for 4 weeks, then bumped it up to 2.2 for another 4 before blood work. Was planning on continuing a .2iu bump every 4 weeks until either the sides caught up with me or I ran out.
I learned the hard way that when I jump 1iu, or even .5iu, I get terrible CTS and water retention.
Elektrobot
Member
Thank you. I wasn't sure how many steps between full IU's would make a difference. I'll go in smaller increments.
twister2418
New Member
37M - 180 ng/mL
Okay so 3 weeks at maintenance and my igf is now 372, been on 75mg test EOD since the last bloods like 7-8 weeks ago.
Dexa on the 17th had me at 200lb @ 17%, which right after I went on vacation and have been eating 3500kal a day since the 17th and I noticeably filled out and up, been sitting 210lb since like the 27th and my top abs pop more than they did when I was 200lb for the Dexa haha.
But anyways I got the bloods taken 4 days ago and that night I started 2iu hgh with the plan to move up to 4iu after a week. But now with my latest bloods having my igf at 372 I’m really not sure what to do. I was going to run gh for 6 months before deciding to stay on not.
My sleep improved on night 1, I haven’t had a “good” nights sleep according the my garmin in 2-3 months my average sleep is less than 7 hours and normally right around 6 hours, but the last 3-4 nights I’ve slept over 8-9 hours and garmin has each of them at “good” since starting the 2iu.
My plan was to run 4iu total AM/PM when getting back to the cut next week doing fasted morning cardio a few hours after the 2iu and once I got to 8-10% bf lean bulk and just do the 4iu at night, increase test to 500mg and see how much I can put on in 24 weeks, clean not dirty.
What’s y’all’s thoughts? If even 2iu is improving my sleep this much and continues to is that alone worth it if my igf is already 372 without it? Fucking aye I also added 40lb to my bench since the 29th of July, fucking eating is the way. Don’t even get how I had energy on 1500kal
Should be taking my own advice…
Bumped HGH from 2.2iu to 3iu per day.
Dropped 6lbs during prep for a colonoscopy last week.
Less than a week later I’ve gained 12lbs above my pre-colonoscopy weight, BP is way up, ankles are swollen by the time I get off of work and hands are falling asleep at night.
All easily fixed by dropping the dose, drinking more water and keeping up with cardio but still, 18lbs in less than a week is…uncomfortable.
malfeasance
Member
Since nobody else has answered, if 2 iu gave me 372 IGF-1, I would probably stay at 2 iu. That is a really good number.
Did I read correctly that your natty number was 299?
So my natty number was 299 about 8 weeks ago but that was also at about 22ish weeks at 1500 calories and down like 65 pounds of fat. Not sure if aggressive cutting would tank that or not.
Then I started test-e at 75mg eod after that test, and then got tested after 7-8 weeks of that and that was when my igf was 372 on just the testosterone not any HGH. This was the bloods just 4-5 days ago.
I started the 2iu the night I got those bloods taken so 372 was my igf without any HGH just on the testosterone. 299 without testosterone but like I said was pretty far into a heavy cut.
The only difference between the 299-372 was the testosterone and I’ve been eating 3500 calories for a few weeks prior to these bloods.
malfeasance
Member
Wow.
Not sure I would do any hgh, then.
It seems like you have all you need naturally to accomplish your goals.
Not sure I would do any hgh, then.
It seems like you have all you need naturally to accomplish your goals.
Ateam2023
Member
I found that being in a calorie defecit had something to do with my low igf1 numbers, theres information supporting this as well,
Proud Pangolin
Member
Guys this may be somewhat offtopic but what confuses me in this whole "natty igf-1 level - acromegaly level" are the very small differences in actual levels.
1. Big differences in the reference ranges. Take for example 20 years old. The numbers for the upper range vary from 300 to 500!
=> So thats the first thing that is very confusing
2. Talking about acromegaly and the everlasting debate about igf-1 levels in that context:
Why would a level of lets say 470 be considered acromegaly in a 50 years old but not in a 20 years old?
Or to be more specific: why would that levek cause unwanted tissue growth in a 50 years old but not in a 20 years old?
1. Big differences in the reference ranges. Take for example 20 years old. The numbers for the upper range vary from 300 to 500!
=> So thats the first thing that is very confusing
2. Talking about acromegaly and the everlasting debate about igf-1 levels in that context:
Why would a level of lets say 470 be considered acromegaly in a 50 years old but not in a 20 years old?
Or to be more specific: why would that levek cause unwanted tissue growth in a 50 years old but not in a 20 years old?
Ghoul
Member
Acromegaly is caused by excess IGF-1. Younger people have many IGF-1 receptors to "soak up" large amounts of IGF, especially in muscle, and grow normally. So a much higher level of IGF can be "used normally" without extra left floating around.
With age, IGF receptors in muscles, heart, and fat are greatly reduced. The capacity to "soak up" IGF is much lower. So IGF 500 in a 20 year old gets completely used because there are so many receptors, but in a 50 year old, with many fewer receptors, say 300 gets used up, and there's 200 extra left floating around.
The problem with that is some tissue, like cartilage and bones (especially in the face) don't lose IGF sensitivity and receptors with age. So the excess IGF gets concentrated in these tissues and they grow too much.
You end up looking like the guys everyone knows were using too much rHGH, like Sylvester Stallone, with the wider face, ridge above the eyes, thick acromegaly nose and lips. His fingers are thicker and his feet are probably at least one size bigger as well.
Last edited:
Proud Pangolin
Member
However, shouldnt by this logic also receptors in every tissue get less and less by age and therefore such a high igf-1 level in a 50 years old should not result in acromegaly?
Like, if your muscles have less receptors shouldnt your nose also have less receptors?
Ghoul
Member
There's no basis to think IGF receptors decline evenly in every part of the body any more than androgen or any other receptors. This isn't a theory, it's clear from animal and human tissue analysis.
“The extracellular part of the IGF system is complex with various receptors, ligand effectors, high-affinity IGF-binding proteins, proteinases, and endogenous inhibitors that all, along with their biological context, must be considered”.
"Biological context" is referring to the IGF signaling system functioning differently depending on the specific tissue.
Receptor quantity can change in specific tissues because of other factors as well. Higher free testosterone levels increase the amount of IGF receptors in muscle:
“Testosterone concentrations were positively correlated with IGF‑I receptor mRNA levels in skeletal muscle..."
The problem here is a statistical one. The relationship you seek to normalize/standardize lacks a proper population distribution to validate said assumptions.. It's one thing to know how a pathway works in isolation. It's another thing to determine how the same pathway works or whether the same outcome always occurs when it's located in a 'system soup'. It's why some of these arguments will continue till someone gets permission to do wider testing.
You can even see that in one of the articles Ghoul shared:
Attachments
You can see this same study in mice saying age plays a role in downregulating IGF-1 receptor activation in skeletal tissue
Does this have a part to play in the human acromegaly experience? who knows.
All that is known is that people with acromegaly tend to have high levels of IGF-1. What we do not know is how many people have high IGF-1 without having acromegaly.
Before we lose ourselves in the nitty gritty, the reason we're all here is to make sure we're getting the best gains at the safest and healthiest amounts. So we play by what we know and don't get too bent over what we do not.
Similar threads
