300+ is a good igf score for 3iu and above the "normal high" range Dr look at.Yes I have them saved, looking for them now. Is 3.3iu average normal not to even hit the higher range of the test ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you are able include GH serum with your IGF-1 test.Yes I have them saved, looking for them now. Is 3.3iu average normal not to even hit the higher range of the test ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Montego1,300+ is a good igf score for 3iu and above the "normal high" range Dr look at.
Typically you'll see 100igf for every 1iu on blood results
Might want to read the test above and then read the study again for your answer.Montego1,
Where are you getting this information about what a doctor looks at as "normal-high?' Just the reference range on the blood test? Could that be like the testosterone reference range, which keeps getting lower because men have lower testosterone now?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2355952
I ask because these patients were considered low at 350 or lower. Their hgh regimen placed them up at 500-1500
The full text is available at the link in the upper right hand corner.
8.8% increase in lean mass.
14.4% decrease in fat mass.
1.6% increase in bone density.
7.1% increase in skin thickness.
They were administering 3 times a week. Roughly 8 iu 3 times a week, depending upon bodyweight of the patient.
Units, or U?I mean the way the igf in this test is scored right there on the paper in ng/ml.
The study you posted is UNITS per Liter.
Doesn't even say what unit they used.
Please explain. I ran a text search on the entire text and do not find what you just wrote.Looks to me like it just says unit
Well, true, I am, but I am assuming based on all of the available evidence, including the information I gave you above about the letter u being used for the Greek letter u, as shorthand for micrograms, ug, as the general reference back then due to the unavailability of the Greek letter in fonts to publish. That is no longer the case, but it was in 1990 (remember what word processors were like back then?). I admit I could be wrong, but all of the evidence points to me being right, not wrong, and there is no counter evidence yet.Unless they specify what unit is used, you're just assuming.
Yes. If you look at reference ranges by age, you will see it drop even lower than that by age each decade after the 20s. My question to you is twofold - (1) is that the standard? Think about testosterone? Would you want to use the low end of the published range right now for your doctor's "normal?" Lots of doctors do.But you can clearly see the refrence range posted in his lab work on the high end of normal.
I'm gonna let you figure this one out on your own.Ok, so which one is arbitrarily agreed upon by scientists and doctors, so that we can make some sense out of what you are saying with respect to this particular study? Note they did write "unit" when referring to dosing, but only U when referring to IGF-1 test results, so they knew how to write unit if that is what they wanted to write. It seems much more plausible they they were using U to stand for the Greek u . . .
But if you tell me this agreed upon unit so that I can figure out if it makes sense with respect to this study, that would help a lot. Oddly, if you go with the ug it all fits just fine when your read the study (and by the way, I have stumbled upon several other studies from around the same time period that are written the same way). Which other arbitrarily agreed upon unit fits? It would have to make sense in a way that other researchers reading would knew what these authors meant, right?