Thread: IGF vs HGH

When comparing these two, a bodybuilder would rather go with IGF correct? Igf is stronger and bypasses the whole reason why someone would take HGH in the first place because that's where the muscle bulding and fat loss is basically coming from? Have you guys taken legit IGF and compared it with GH? What can you say was your experience? HGH and Igf seem to be the best case, but that is very expensive hahaha. Rich Piana said igf 1 was the best and strongest bodybuilding drug he's ever taken.

When comparing HGH and IGF-1, which one is stronger or better?

Answer:
The first and most important difference to consider is that HGH works on everybody while IGF-1 long R3 does not. For an unknown reason the IGF-1 seems to work wonders on some people while producing absolutely no effect on others.
I personally am one of the unlucky ones, my body does not respond to IGF-1 LR3. In hopes of reproducing the good results from IGF praised by my friends I have given it a try at least 10 times within a few years time span. My supply was authentic, highest purity, fresh from the production line which I personally helped create.
Those who respond to IGF-1 long R3 describe amazing pumps during workouts, rapid increase in strength and good increase in muscle mass. I have observed these results on my friends. In this regards, IGF-1 can be described as "HGH on steroids". Both produce similar results, while IGF-1 does it faster (for those who respond to it).
Growth hormone does have some additional benefits (overall body rejuvenation, smoother skin, faster hair growth, and a dozen more) which IGF-1 does not. Because of that HGH is prefered by anti aging users. Growth hormone gradually increases the body's own IGF-1 production. At 4 IU of HGH per day, the IGF-1 levels would eventually increase up to 300% - this then causes muscle cells to build up, strength increase and bigger pumps during workouts.
IGF-1 LR3 is used for shorter periods, usually not more than 50 days. Growth hormone is used from 2 months upwards and it's muscle building effect becomes noticeable around 4 to 8 weeks into the cycle.
So which is better, growth hormone or IGF-1?
The answer comes down to these two points:

1. If your goal is only to build muscles faster then IGF-1 is better. If you prefer the overall body rejuvenation as well as gradual muscle building, then HGH is better.
2. Does your body respond to IGF-1 or are you one of the non-responders like myself? If you are a responder, then IGF-1 is better for you, otherwise HGH is the way to go.

Unfortunately there is no way of knowing if your body will respond to the IGF-1 long R3 until you give it a try. On the other hand everybody responds to HGH, but the muscle building effects are more gradual when compared with IGF-1.

Originally Posted by dorianyates

When comparing HGH and IGF-1, which one is stronger or better?

Answer:
The first and most important difference to consider is that HGH works on everybody while IGF-1 long R3 does not. For an unknown reason the IGF-1 seems to work wonders on some people while producing absolutely no effect on others.
I personally am one of the unlucky ones, my body does not respond to IGF-1 LR3. In hopes of reproducing the good results from IGF praised by my friends I have given it a try at least 10 times within a few years time span. My supply was authentic, highest purity, fresh from the production line which I personally helped create.
Those who respond to IGF-1 long R3 describe amazing pumps during workouts, rapid increase in strength and good increase in muscle mass. I have observed these results on my friends. In this regards, IGF-1 can be described as "HGH on steroids". Both produce similar results, while IGF-1 does it faster (for those who respond to it).
Growth hormone does have some additional benefits (overall body rejuvenation, smoother skin, faster hair growth, and a dozen more) which IGF-1 does not. Because of that HGH is prefered by anti aging users. Growth hormone gradually increases the body's own IGF-1 production. At 4 IU of HGH per day, the IGF-1 levels would eventually increase up to 300% - this then causes muscle cells to build up, strength increase and bigger pumps during workouts.
IGF-1 LR3 is used for shorter periods, usually not more than 50 days. Growth hormone is used from 2 months upwards and it's muscle building effect becomes noticeable around 4 to 8 weeks into the cycle.
So which is better, growth hormone or IGF-1?
The answer comes down to these two points:

1. If your goal is only to build muscles faster then IGF-1 is better. If you prefer the overall body rejuvenation as well as gradual muscle building, then HGH is better.
2. Does your body respond to IGF-1 or are you one of the non-responders like myself? If you are a responder, then IGF-1 is better for you, otherwise HGH is the way to go.

Unfortunately there is no way of knowing if your body will respond to the IGF-1 long R3 until you give it a try. On the other hand everybody responds to HGH, but the muscle building effects are more gradual when compared with IGF-1.

thanks dy!!! This was an amazing post and really filled my knowledge. I'd almost always choose igf if I knew it was legit. Unfortunately legit hgh is easier and cheaper to come by.

once you find some really good legit igf-1 lr3 let me know