# 99.9% of IGF and analogues on the market is useless



## Luscious Lei (Nov 10, 2014)

_Further to a chat I had with MM in the catbox today, here a post by Moppy on another board about the bioavailability of the IGF and IGF analogues sold by peptides companies.

I found this post highly interesting and since a peps company is a sponsor of the board where it was posted, the thread got killed quickly.
It is too scientific for my understanding so I hope people with the knowledge will chime in._

From: *Moppy1*
Thread: *IGF-1 and analogues wont work if chemically synthesized*

"Just wanted to start a discussion about an issue related to efficacy of IGF-1 and related analogs such as Des, LR3, etc. There are hundreds of threads here about IGF-1 giving good gains, especially when used with GH. However, most of us are purchasing IGF-1-LR3 from peptide synthesis companies. However, chemical synthesis of IGF-1 completely lacks the correct disulfide bonds that impart the proper folding of the protein for its activity. IGF-1 and its analogs all require 3 disulfide bonds to generate the correct folded form of the protein, and this can only be accomplished in the body as naturally produced, or in E.coli as a recombinant source, just like how GH is made (recombinantly). Insulin is very similar in structure to IGF-1 and it also is completely inactive if synthesized chemically, it also has to be made recombinantly or extracted from a biologic source (people used to use bovine Insulin before recombinant sources). Recombinant means it is made in bacteria, which have enzymes to create these intramolecular disulfide bonds so the protein folds into the right configuration. All human clinical trials or current treatment of patients in the clinic is performed with recombinant IGF-1 or the LR3 isoform. The synthesized peptide version will have 0 biologic activity. There are countless references in the scientific literature to this effect. Here is one for example:

Role of native disulfide bonds in the structure... [Biochemistry. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI 

Thus, IGF-1 does work, but you have to use the recombinant form, which is 10X more expensive compared with chemically synthesized forms. What I find amusing are all the past threads claiming how great IGF-1 LR3 worked for bros, especially in combination with GH, but best I can surmise most were using the version of IGF-1 LR3 from chemical synthesis, which has 0 biologic activity, regardless of dosage.

I would love it if someone could prove me wrong here and show data that the chemically synthesized versions of IGF-1 have biologic activity. Because I would definitely love to purchase the synthesized versions as they are so much more reasonably priced compared with recombinant (in fact, it is nearly impossible to get the recombinant version of IGF-1). Feed back please...."

_To a question about the disulphide bonds, Moppy further answered:_

"Extensive biochemistry on insulin production paved the way, because of the overwhelming demand for it to treat diabetes. Insulin has 0 activity if chemically synthesized, has to be generated by bacteria (recombinant). The bacteria are optimized to make the correct disulfied bonds to pull the peptide structure together so it makes the proper conformation to bind the receptor. Same thing is exactly true for IGF-1. GH also has to be recombinant."

_To a question about if the basic insulin is recombinant:_

"Yes, insulin is all recombinant. Has to be or it wont work, unless extracted from a biologic source. But recombinant insulin is crazy cheap cause it is no longer on patent and there are dozens of companies that make it in industrial size fermentors. IGF-1 is much harder to produce correctly when made recombinantly, and only 2 companies hold the patent rights for all medical treatments with the legitimate stuff. The only source you can trust is from a protein production company, like Genetech or Amgen or GroPep or similar. Peptide companies are selling you chemically synthesized IGF-1, and it will have NO BIOLOGIC ACTIVITY! Even the slightly more expensive stuff sold as media grade IGF-1 LR3 is bunk. I dont want to say to much, but I work in the profession, everything I have told you is a certainty."

_To someone arguing that he was seeing results with his IGF:_ 

"Well, maybe you got some recombinant IGF-1 LR3 made in E.coli. The best rate for which i could find for industrial or university endeavors, unless from China, is between $300-600 for 1 mg (see links below). That is very expensive! All the peptide companies are selling it for around $60 for 1mg, and this is the stuff that cannot possibly be effective.


----------



## gymrat827 (Nov 10, 2014)

interesting....want to see where this goes


----------



## Cobra Strike (Nov 10, 2014)

Thats why I only buy igetropin from hygene (obviously you cant buy it directly from them lol). A few docs have told me the only real igf being produced in the states are being made in research facilities like big college research facilities. The igf from peptide companies are no doubt fake. This is just what the docs have told me so who knows if they actually know but based on this thread it sounds like they do.


----------



## transcend2007 (Nov 10, 2014)

I can comment on IGF from peptides companies.  I can comment on gh ~ rips, tevtropin, and seros.  I have take each for some period over time over the past 3 years.  All 3 increased my blood serum IGF-1 factor over 300.


----------



## Cobra Strike (Nov 10, 2014)

How did you run the test on the igf and the gh brother...dosages and timing?


----------



## Want2lift (Nov 10, 2014)

Definetly an interesting read. I do see recombinant IGF-1 on a few lists and he's right, usually about 4 times the cost of the stuff peptide companies sell. Also comes in 10x100 mcg vials and not the usual 1x1mg vial.  Maybe this difference is why most guys are using 50-100mcgs daily and guys like Poliquin are advocating that 20 mcg's is all you should need.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Nov 10, 2014)

transcend2007 said:


> I can comment on IGF from peptides companies.  I can comment on gh ~ rips, tevtropin, and seros.  I have take each for some period over time over the past 3 years.  All 3 increased my blood serum IGF-1 factor over 300.



The issue Moppy is talking about is that although the IGF peptides being produced by RC companies is real IGF, they're made synthetically instead of recombinantly. Either will show up on blood tests but only the latter will actually have any biological activity bc the synthetically made stuff doesn't have he right disulfide bonds.


----------



## TriniJuice (Nov 10, 2014)

Dammit doc; i wanna do some Hannibal lecter shxt with your brain.....I'd use adobo


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Nov 10, 2014)

TriniJuice said:


> Dammit doc; i wanna do some Hannibal lecter shxt with your brain.....I'd use adobo



Don't forget the sazon and sofrito lol


----------



## curtisvill (Nov 10, 2014)

very interesting read, thank you.


----------



## Maintenance Man (Nov 11, 2014)

Very nice article Lei. I'm glad you pulled this up when we were talking about that. I understand completely what you meant now lol


----------



## goodfella (Nov 11, 2014)

Peptides sell IGF-lr3 is suppose to be different than IGF (the one thats great for growth). I've read a few places stating some company has a paten or something on the real IGF and is another reason why it's rear. Thought I saw a post here or another forum how they recently put out a lot# to real research labs for researching. It was either IGF or something similar, can't recall the name/spelling


----------



## gymrat827 (Nov 14, 2014)

Want2lift said:


> Definetly an interesting read. I do see recombinant IGF-1 on a few lists and he's right, usually about 4 times the cost of the stuff peptide companies sell. Also comes in 10x100 mcg vials and not the usual 1x1mg vial.  Maybe this difference is why most guys are using 50-100mcgs daily and guys like Poliquin are advocating that 20 mcg's is all you should need.



has anyone used this stuff for any length of time...???


----------



## Cobra Strike (Nov 14, 2014)

gymrat827 said:


> has anyone used this stuff for any length of time...???



I will be for 7 months...but thats future tense brother lol

I read alot of shit about it causing tumor growth to acclerate and it also binds to cancerous cells and can accelerate the disease. This is all true igf-1 though not the peptide shit


----------



## gymrat827 (Nov 14, 2014)

As I've used all sorts of RC LR3, I'd like to try what your going to be using.  

If results are there.  What type of dose do u plan.


----------



## Cobra Strike (Nov 15, 2014)

Like the guy stated above these come in 100mcg per vial. They are called igetropins. Recumbant igf. Right now I plan on running them at 100mcg per day on the weeks that im not running insulin. The igf works well running it with growth hormone. I plan on testing these just to make sure they are legit.


----------



## beasto (Jan 18, 2015)

Cobra bro what brand are you running of the IGF??? I talked with a well known pro. Who's also a good friend for years I will not name, and he's told me for years that the real deal IGF is hard as **** to get unless you really have the connects to get it.


----------



## Cobra Strike (Jan 18, 2015)

beasto said:


> Cobra bro what brand are you running of the IGF??? I talked with a well known pro. Who's also a good friend for years I will not name, and he's told me for years that the real deal IGF is hard as **** to get unless you really have the connects to get it.



Yea brother your guy is right. At the time i was posting about these igetropins i was believing that these were real. These were not real and infact cost me over a grand in losses. This is just a fraction of how much I have lost in my igf hunt....


----------



## gymrat827 (Jan 19, 2015)

i think back in 2011, early 2012 the peptide companies had decent stuff.  

but thats changed in recent years.  Anyone else.....???

early-mid 2011, SRC's stuff gave me light gains, fatloss.  but than you had DES around too, that was a bit better than any LR3 but you needed to pin like a mofo and i didnt get too much of it because of that.


----------



## thqmas (Sep 25, 2015)

That's a valuable post. Very interesting read. Thanks.


----------



## Analyticchem (Jul 17, 2017)

Very interesting but completely false. 
I am a R&D biochemist. While many of the igf peptides sold online are fake or are less than 70% pure, some are real. Get them tested , reverse phase hplc and page electrophoresis.
synthetic igf will bind as well as that which is bio synthesized (rDNA) 
the most important test is binding affinity, how much of the peptide actually binds to the receptor.
Also,any peptide over 60 amino acids long is not feasible by solid phase synthesis , only recombinant DNA using bacteria can efficiently achieve this. 
Please check your science before making assumptions or uneducated guesses. 

[h=3]Abstract[/h]Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), whether recombinant, chemically-synthesised or purified from bovine colostrum, was equipotent in radioreceptor assays with IGF-1 or insulin-like growth factor-2 (IGF-2) as radioligand as well as in its ability to stimulate protein synthesis in L6 myoblasts. The N-terminal truncated, destripeptide derivative of IGF-1 was approximately 7 times more potent than IGF-1 in the protein synthesis bioassay. This increased activity occurred equally with the peptide purified from bovine colostrum as with chemically-synthesised material. The higher potency of the truncated form was not associated with an increased ability to compete for IGF-1 binding to L6 myoblasts.


----------



## BigSwolePump (Jul 17, 2017)

Analyticchem said:


> Very interesting but completely false.
> I am a R&D biochemist. While many of the igf peptides sold online are fake or are less than 70% pure, some are real. Get them tested , reverse phase hplc and page electrophoresis.
> synthetic igf will bind as well as that which is bio synthesized (rDNA)
> the most important test is binding affinity, how much of the peptide actually binds to the receptor.
> ...


You don't get to just come here and on your first post, attempt to discredit members by quoting an abstract without a single shred of evidence. This post was started in 2014. Post in the introduction section and identify yourself then pick a recent post to debate or maybe just go fuk yourself.

BTW I am Jesus Christ because I said so on the internet, Mr R&D Biochemist....

PS: No one is going to buy your shit here so don't try to advertise. KThanks


----------



## PillarofBalance (Jul 17, 2017)

Analyticchem said:


> Very interesting but completely false.
> I am a R&D biochemist. While many of the igf peptides sold online are fake or are less than 70% pure, some are real. Get them tested , reverse phase hplc and page electrophoresis.
> synthetic igf will bind as well as that which is bio synthesized (rDNA)
> the most important test is binding affinity, how much of the peptide actually binds to the receptor.
> ...



You haven't demonstrated that the bottles of whatever these research chemical companies are selling are indeed IGF.

In fact I don't see the point of your post at all.


----------



## gymrat827 (Jul 17, 2017)

PillarofBalance said:


> You haven't demonstrated that the bottles of whatever these research chemical companies are selling are indeed IGF.
> 
> In fact I don't see the point of your post at all.



right, your first post here is to discredit but you have no proof on a iffy subject.  

Okay, thank you for your knowledge, i was still buying LR3


----------



## Analyticchem (Jul 24, 2017)

A) I do not sell or advertise for ANY company. I have personally tested products from companies interested in knowing if the compounds they are buying(mostly from China) are real or counterfeit, and how is it that the pharma igf-1 is 10x the price of what is seen being sold by online peptide companies. 
My point was, whether they are synthetic or from recombinant DNA, they can still bind to the receptor, and what is important is how much actually binds. If you have only a 10% binding affinity , then 100mcg would be required to get 10mcg to bind. A blood test for igf 1 may well reveal high blood serum levels, but says nothing about how much bound to the receptor (if any) This is why so many people see no results. Most of what is out there is garbage. Receptor grade igf 1-lr3 is about 35,000/gram
or 250 to 600$ per mg . The first thread suggested that only rDNA igf is functional, and that isn't the case.  Synthetic igf will bind also. NONE of these peptide companies manufacture the peptides, they buy it from China, label it and re-sell it. 
The only way to really know what you have is to get it tested.


----------



## Analyticchem (Jul 24, 2017)

Thanks Jesus, but I don't think he would go tell people to "fuk"themselves 
he would probably go to college and get an education first


----------



## BigSwolePump (Jul 24, 2017)

Again, what is your point?


----------



## Redrum1327 (Jul 24, 2017)

You're not helping your case. Anyone with a brain will have their products tested to make sure they're not throwing away money over and over. You basically just stated everything we already knew and had already been mentioned. Thanks for your .02 tho


----------



## PillarofBalance (Jul 24, 2017)

Analyticchem said:


> A) I do not sell or advertise for ANY company. I have personally tested products from companies interested in knowing if the compounds they are buying(mostly from China) are real or counterfeit, and how is it that the pharma igf-1 is 10x the price of what is seen being sold by online peptide companies.
> My point was, whether they are synthetic or from recombinant DNA, they can still bind to the receptor, and what is important is how much actually binds. If you have only a 10% binding affinity , then 100mcg would be required to get 10mcg to bind. A blood test for igf 1 may well reveal high blood serum levels, but says nothing about how much bound to the receptor (if any) This is why so many people see no results. Most of what is out there is garbage. Receptor grade igf 1-lr3 is about 35,000/gram
> or 250 to 600$ per mg . The first thread suggested that only rDNA igf is functional, and that isn't the case.  Synthetic igf will bind also. NONE of these peptide companies manufacture the peptides, they buy it from China, label it and re-sell it.
> The only way to really know what you have is to get it tested.



This makes your point a hell of a lot more clear then your first post.

So this thread started pretty much as an experiment by Cobra Strike. For a couple years we have been saying there isn't a chance that cheap Chinese and research chemical company IGF is legitimate quality regardless of synthetic or recombined.


----------



## Analyticchem (Jul 25, 2017)

The point was in response to what started the thread, that ONLY Igf made from recombinant DNA (e.coli) is biologically active..or will bind. The abstract is from a published medical article in which it clearly demonstrates that synthetic igf will bind to the receptors, quite well actually. 

.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2962574/


Look up solid phase peptide synthesizers or microwave peptide synthesizers. This is how peptides are made in the lab, but are efficient up to Amino acid sequences(residues) of 60.
Igf is 70 , igf 1 lr3 83. 
What the Chinese do is synthesize smaller pieces , say 20 aa's long and basically "glue" them together. This process leaves impurities and unwanted residues behind. They may have the sequence correct, but this is just the linear chain. 
Think of a rubber band, now begin twisting it until it "balls" up..this is the proteins tertiary structure and that is how the protein exists in its natural state , and that is how it fits into the receptor, like a lock and a key. 
To make rDNA is a much larger investment and only a few companies in China have these reactors, and they don't sell on the black market. 

It won't let me post complete links but here is part of it 
.asianscientist.com/2014/10/in-the-lab/revolutionary-tool-joining-peptides/

I have tested many that have the sequence correct, but most are very impure, less than 70% , and the most important test, binding affinity, they are worthless. 

But again , I just read that this guy , moppy? started the discussion stating that synthetic igf doesn't work, and the scientific evidence shows that it does. 
I only tried to share what I know, as I've studied peptides for a number of years.


----------

