Does IGF-1 LR3 Make Your Organs Grow?

Every IGF-1 LR3 guide online follows the same script: muscle growth, hyperplasia, 20 to 50 mcg post-workout, "watch your blood sugar," buy now. None of them answer the two questions that actually matter. Does flooding your body with a peptide that grows tissue also grow the tissues you can't see? And what should your bloodwork look like so you catch a problem before it becomes permanent?

IGF-1 LR3 is not a muscle peptide. It is a whole-body growth signal that happens to grow muscle along with everything else. The receptor it activates sits on your heart, your kidneys, your liver, and the lining of your colon, not just your biceps. That is the part the vendor blogs skip, and it is the part this article is built around.

This covers what LR3 and the DES variant actually are, what they do to your glucose and insulin, the organ-growth question the title asks, the exact blood panel to run on a cycle, and how it stacks up against the GH-axis options like MK-677.

What IGF-1 LR3 and DES actually are

Native IGF-1 is a short-lived hormone. Free in the blood it lasts under 10 minutes, because six binding proteins (IGFBPs) grab it almost immediately. Most of your circulating IGF-1 sits in a large complex with IGFBP-3 and an acid-labile subunit, which extends its life to around 16 hours but keeps it inactive until tissues need it (Allard and Duan, 2018). Those binding proteins are the brake on IGF-1 activity. Both lab analogs exist to defeat that brake.

LR3 stands for Long Arg3. It carries an arginine swapped in at position 3 plus a 13-amino-acid extension on the front end (King et al., 1992). That single substitution drops its binding to IGFBPs roughly 1,000-fold, so it never gets sequestered. It circulates as free, active peptide. The widely repeated 20 to 30 hour half-life follows logically from that escape, but here is a caveat almost no guide mentions: it has never been measured in a human pharmacokinetic study. The one rodent study that looked actually found LR3 cleared faster than expected (Mongongu et al., 2021). The number is structural reasoning plus vendor data, not a clinical fact.

DES, or des(1-3)IGF-1, takes the opposite structural route to the same end. It is missing the first three amino acids on the N-terminus, which is exactly the bit IGFBPs recognise. Strip that off and the binding proteins can no longer hold it (Ross et al., 1989). In binding-protein-rich tissue it is about 10 times more potent than native IGF-1 (Adashi et al., 1992), but it clears in roughly 20 to 30 minutes. Short and sharp.

One thing both analogs do that nobody advertises: in animal infusion studies, LR3 suppressed the animal's own IGF-1 and IGFBPs while it was running (Conlon et al., 1995). You are not adding to your natural axis, you are overriding and shutting it down.

The hyperplasia claim is mostly a myth

The headline selling point for IGF-1 LR3 is hyperplasia: brand new muscle cells, not just bigger ones. It is the reason people believe IGF-1 gains are permanent in a way steroid gains are not. The evidence does not support it in adult humans.

True hyperplasia (more muscle fibres) is documented in newborn rodents and in animals under extreme mechanical overload. In trained adult humans it is essentially absent. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 studies found that resistance training did not significantly change the number of muscle fibres over periods up to six months (Barton et al., 2026). The cell-culture work people cite (Jacquemin et al., 2004) shows IGF-1 pulling reserve satellite cells into existing fibres, which is myonuclear accretion, a component of normal hypertrophy, not the birth of independent new fibres.

So when a vendor says LR3 causes hyperplasia, what they mean is it activates a pathway that does this in a petri dish and in baby rats. Whether it builds new fibres in a 30-year-old who already lifts is unproven, and the best current human data says even hard training does not.

IGF-1 DES vs LR3, and which one to use

This is the comparison the forums argue about and the articles get wrong. The honest framing is not "which builds more muscle," because neither has a single human muscle-growth trial. It is "where do you want the IGF-1 activity, and how much hypoglycaemia exposure are you accepting?"

LR3 is the systemic option. One injection, free peptide circulating for the better part of a day, IGF-1 receptors lit up across the whole body. That is the appeal for a bulking or recovery phase, and it is also exactly why the organ-growth and glucose concerns are larger with LR3. The activity does not stay in the muscle you trained.

DES is the local, brief option. Injected into the trained muscle right around the session, its rapid clearance means a high concentration hits that tissue before it dilutes away. The site-enhancement logic is mechanistically plausible through local satellite-cell recruitment, but again, no human trial confirms preferential local growth.

The safety distinction is real and underdiscussed. LR3 keeps IGF-1 activity elevated for the whole exposure window, so the hypoglycaemia risk is prolonged and can sneak up overnight or after cardio. DES clears in minutes, so its hypoglycaemia risk is intense but short, concentrated in the hour after injection. Most experienced users rate LR3 as the higher overall glucose risk because of that long tail.

What IGF-1 LR3 does to your glucose and insulin

IGF-1 is an insulin mimic. Its receptor is a close cousin of the insulin receptor, and at high free concentrations IGF-1 cross-activates the insulin receptor directly. The practical result is that it drives GLUT4 transporters to the muscle cell surface and pulls glucose out of the blood within about 10 minutes, just like insulin does (Bilan et al., 1992). This is why LR3 lowers blood sugar, and why a fasted injection is the dangerous one.

The acute effect on your labs is striking. In a human infusion study, IGF-1 dropped fasting insulin by 57%, from 16.7 to 7.2 mU/L (Russell-Jones et al., 1997). Your pancreas senses the insulin-like signal and stops secreting. That matters for monitoring, and I will come back to why it makes a HOMA-IR drawn on cycle lie to you.

The hypoglycaemia risk is the headline safety issue, and the best human evidence comes from mecasermin, the licensed form of IGF-1. In its phase III trial, 47% of patients had hypoglycaemia, and several had seizures or lost consciousness (FDA Increlex data). That was in supervised patients dosing within 20 minutes of a meal. The label mandates eating around every dose and holding it if a meal is missed. Bodybuilders use higher doses, unsupervised, sometimes fasted.

Worse, IGF-1 hypoglycaemia is harder to climb out of than insulin hypoglycaemia. When researchers compared the two at matched glucose nadirs (around 2.6 mmol/L), IGF-1 produced no glucagon counter-regulation and significantly delayed recovery (Kerr et al., 1993). Your body's rescue hormone barely fires. If you treat IGF-1 like insulin and assume you can ride out a low, you are wrong.

A worked HOMA-IR example, and why it lies on cycle

HOMA-IR estimates insulin resistance from two cheap numbers: HOMA-IR = (fasting glucose in mmol/L x fasting insulin in mU/L) / 22.5. Below about 2.5 is normal; consistently above is insulin resistance (Schrank et al., 2024). On IGF-1 LR3 it moves in a deceptive, biphasic way.

Take a healthy baseline: glucose 5.0, insulin 8. HOMA-IR = (5.0 x 8) / 22.5 = 1.78. Fine.

Now draw it during active LR3 use, while the peptide is suppressing your insulin output. Insulin falls to 4, glucose to 4.2. HOMA-IR = (4.2 x 4) / 22.5 = 0.75. That looks fantastic. It is an artefact. Your insulin is low because IGF-1 switched off your pancreas, not because your sensitivity improved. A blood test run on cycle will hand you a falsely reassuring number.

Now the chronic supraphysiological state, the acromegaly pattern: glucose 6.5, compensatory insulin 20. HOMA-IR = (6.5 x 20) / 22.5 = 5.78. Deep into insulin resistance. This is the direction sustained high IGF-1 actually pushes you, and it mirrors the clinical data: in acromegaly, HOMA-IR correlates with IGF-1 at r=0.83, and more than half of patients have abnormal glucose at diagnosis (Mori et al., 2013; Stelmachowska-Banas et al., 2009).

The takeaway: to get a HOMA-IR that means anything, draw it off LR3 by at least 48 to 72 hours. On-cycle insulin numbers are not interpretable. For the deeper mechanism of how growth signalling wrecks insulin sensitivity, see our GH and insulin resistance article, and the MK-677 blood sugar guide for the slow-creep version of the same problem.

Does IGF-1 LR3 actually make your organs grow?

This is the question in the title, and the answer is not the reassuring one the vendors give. Yes, the mechanism for organ growth is real, well-documented, and unavoidable. Whether a short cycle does meaningful damage is genuinely unknown, but "we do not know" is very different from "it is safe."

Start with the basic biology. The IGF-1 receptor is not a muscle receptor. It sits on adipocytes, liver cells, kidney tubules, thyroid follicles, heart muscle, and the epithelial lining of your colon. One review calls it "a universal regulator in all tissues" (Khan et al., 2024). When you inject free, IGFBP-resistant LR3, every one of those tissues gets the growth signal at once, not just the muscle you are trying to build.

In animals this is not subtle. Continuous infusion of IGF-1 or LR3 in young rats grew the kidneys by up to 85%, the spleen by 76%, and the gut by 60%, with LR3 the more potent of the two (Steeb et al., 1997). The guinea pig data showed the same selective visceral organ growth (Conlon et al., 1995). That is the pharmacology working as designed, on the wrong organs.

The human model is acromegaly, the disease of chronic GH and IGF-1 excess. It is not a perfect analogy, because acromegaly runs for years and bodybuilding cycles run for weeks, but it is the only human evidence we have, and the IGF-1 level itself (not GH) is usually the independent predictor of the damage.

The heart. Left ventricular hypertrophy shows up in around 65% of untreated acromegaly patients, with the odds of LVH roughly 28 times that of controls (Guo et al., 2018). Nearly a third show early concentric remodelling before overt hypertrophy appears, which is the stage an echocardiogram catches before you feel anything (Hinojosa-Amaya et al., 2021). Cardiovascular disease causes about 60% of acromegaly deaths, with a pooled mortality ratio of 1.72 (Dekkers et al., 2008).

The colon. IGF-1 drives proliferation of the colon lining directly. In acromegaly the odds of adenomatous polyps are about 2.5 times higher, and of colorectal cancer roughly 4.4 times higher (Rokkas et al., 2008). The cancer signal is not limited to acromegaly either: in the general population, large pooled studies link higher circulating IGF-1 to increased risk of prostate cancer (about 29% higher in the top quintile), breast cancer (about 28% higher), and colorectal cancer, with Mendelian randomisation supporting a causal link for the colon (Travis et al., 2016; Endogenous Hormones and Breast Cancer Collaborative Group, 2010). The risk gradient exists below acromegalic levels. Injecting IGF-1 moves you up that gradient.

The kidneys. Acromegaly patients lose kidney function at roughly double the normal rate, around 1.28 mL/min per year, and about 21% develop chronic kidney disease over follow-up (Castagna et al., 2025). Early on, IGF-1 can raise filtration and make eGFR look high-normal, which masks the damage. That is exactly why the right kidney marker matters, covered in the panel below.

The honest bottom line: short, intermittent cycles are not decades of acromegaly, and nobody has shown a 4-week LR3 cycle enlarges a healthy athlete's heart. But the mechanism is identical, the dose-duration threshold for early structural change has never been established, and grey-market purity means you do not actually know your dose. "GH gut" and the abdominal distension some massive bodybuilders develop sit in this same territory: a mix of GH, insulin and IGF-1 growing visceral tissue, described in the literature but never cleanly studied (Suslin et al., 2024).

The pre-cycle, on-cycle, and post-cycle blood panel

Because LR3 acts everywhere, monitoring is a metabolic and organ-safety panel, not a single test. Here is what to pull and when.

Baseline, before the first injection: serum IGF-1 (fasted), fasting glucose, fasting insulin (calculate HOMA-IR), HbA1c, ALT, AST, creatinine with eGFR, cystatin C, albumin, a CBC, and a lipid panel.

On-cycle, around week 2 to 3 of a typical 4 to 6 week run: fasting glucose, fasting insulin, HOMA-IR (drawn off LR3 for 48 to 72 hours so insulin reads true), and ALT/AST and creatinine for organ safety. HbA1c moves too slowly to bother repeating mid-cycle.

End of cycle and post: the full baseline panel again, including HbA1c at the 8 to 12 week mark and cystatin C for the real kidney signal. Draw serum IGF-1 at least 72 hours after your last injection.

Two markers deserve a special note. First, cystatin C is non-negotiable in this population. In AAS-using bodybuilders, creatinine-based eGFR read essentially identical to non-users, while cystatin-C-based eGFR was significantly worse, meaning standard kidney tests miss early damage in muscular people (Ozkurt et al., 2023). Since IGF-1 grows kidneys, you need the marker that is not fooled by your muscle mass.

Second, the serum IGF-1 assay caveat, which no competitor explains honestly. Standard IGF-1 immunoassays may partly cross-react with injected LR3 (the antibody can still grab it), or may miss it entirely, depending on the assay (Niederkofler et al., 2013; Mongongu et al., 2021). So a normal on-cycle IGF-1 does not prove the compound is inert, and an elevated one does not cleanly tell you how much is yours versus the drug. Use the same lab every time, draw consistently relative to your last injection, and treat any reading above 1.3 times your age-specific upper limit (the acromegaly threshold) as a stop signal regardless of source (Giustina et al., 2024).

A simple decision tree for whether to continue or stop

• Serum IGF-1 above 1.3x your age-specific upper limit: stop or cut the dose. That is acromegalic territory, whether the elevation is yours or the drug's.
• Fasting glucose above 6.1 mmol/L (110 mg/dL), or more than 20% over baseline on two draws: insulin resistance is developing. Reassess dose and carb timing.
• HOMA-IR above ~2.9 (drawn off cycle): a real insulin-resistance signal. Talk to a doctor.
• Any hypoglycaemia symptoms with glucose under 3.5 mmol/L (63 mg/dL): hard stop. Remember the rescue is slow because glucagon barely fires.
• ALT or AST above 3x the upper limit: pause and retest. Organ growth can nudge liver enzymes up even without classic toxicity, but the threshold is the same.
• Cystatin-C eGFR falling more than 10 to 15 mL/min from baseline while creatinine looks fine: a genuine early kidney signal being hidden by your muscle mass. Stop and investigate.

How IGF-1 LR3 compares to MK-677 and the GH-axis options

There are two completely different ways to raise IGF-1, and the difference is the whole safety story. One group of compounds asks your pituitary to make more growth hormone, which then tells your liver to make IGF-1. The other skips the pituitary entirely and injects IGF-1 straight into your blood. LR3 and DES are the second kind, and that is what makes them riskier per unit of IGF-1.

MK-677 is the most-compared alternative because both raise IGF-1, but it works through the GH axis. It lifts IGF-1 by 50 to 90%, and the glucose cost is documented: fasting glucose climbed from 5.4 to 6.8 mmol/L in four weeks in one study, and a two-year trial showed a significant HbA1c rise of 0.2% (Chapman et al., 1996; Nass et al., 2008). The difference is that MK-677's IGF-1 rise is slow, indirect, and still buffered by your binding proteins. LR3 delivers free IGF-1 with no buffer.

CJC-1295 and ipamorelin raise IGF-1 through pulsatile GH release that keeps your natural feedback intact (Teichman et al., 2006; Ionescu and Frohman, 2006). Tesamorelin raises IGF-1 while staying relatively glucose-neutral in responders (Stanley et al., 2012), though its prescribing label still flags a new-onset-diabetes signal. Exogenous GH raises IGF-1 reliably but brings its own insulin resistance through the free-fatty-acid pathway (Kim and Park, 2017).

Here is the mechanistic gradient, from gentler to harsher, based on feedback biology rather than head-to-head trials: MK-677, then CJC-1295/ipamorelin, then tesamorelin, then exogenous GH, then IGF-1 LR3 at the far end. With every GH-axis option, rising IGF-1 feeds back to the pituitary and applies a brake. With LR3 there is no brake. The injected IGF-1 is already in your blood, hitting receptors in your heart, gut and kidneys, and the only thing your pituitary can do in response is suppress your own GH. You have removed the body's volume control. For the GH-secretagogue monitoring playbook, see our CJC-1295 and ipamorelin labs guide and the SARMs and peptides bloodwork article. If your goal is fat loss rather than mass, the HGH fragment 176-191 route avoids the organ-growth and glucose problems entirely, and PEG-MGF targets the IGF-1 axis more locally.

Practical recommendations

If you run this anyway, run it like someone who wants to keep their organs. Get a real baseline before the first pin, including cystatin C and an IGF-1 level. Never inject LR3 fasted, and keep fast carbs within arm's reach the entire time it is active, because the low can arrive hours later and your glucagon will not save you. Draw your insulin and HOMA-IR off cycle, not on, or the numbers lie. Treat an IGF-1 above 1.3x your age range as a stop sign. If you cycle repeatedly, year after year, get an echocardiogram and track cystatin C, because the heart and kidney changes are the ones you cannot feel until they are advanced. And accept the honest truth that there is no human safety data for any of this in athletes: every number in this article comes from acromegaly patients, HIV patients, or rats.

Key takeaways

• IGF-1 LR3 is a whole-body growth signal, not a muscle peptide. Its receptor sits on your heart, kidneys, liver and colon, and it activates all of them at once.
• Yes, it can grow organs. The mechanism is proven (acromegaly produces enlarged heart, kidneys and colon, and LR3 grew rat organs 60 to 85%). Whether a short cycle does meaningful damage is unknown, but the threshold has never been established.
• The acute danger is hypoglycaemia, and it is worse than insulin hypoglycaemia because the glucagon rescue barely fires and recovery is slow. Never dose fasted; keep fast carbs on hand.
• A HOMA-IR drawn on cycle lies. IGF-1 suppresses your insulin output, making insulin resistance look like improved sensitivity. Draw it off cycle by 48 to 72 hours.
• The hyperplasia claim is overstated. Human evidence for new muscle fibre formation from exogenous IGF-1 does not exist; the best data says even hard training does not increase fibre number.
• LR3 vs DES: LR3 is systemic and longer-acting (higher overall glucose risk), DES is local and brief (sharp acute risk). Neither has a human muscle-growth trial.
• Monitor IGF-1, glucose, insulin, HOMA-IR, HbA1c, ALT/AST, and kidney function via cystatin C, not just creatinine, which misses early damage in muscular people. Echo on repeated long-term use.
• LR3 is the harshest way to raise IGF-1 because it bypasses every feedback brake the GH-axis compounds (MK-677, CJC/ipamorelin, tesamorelin, GH) leave intact.

---

References

1. Allard, J. B., & Duan, C. (2018). IGF-binding proteins: why do they exist and why are there so many? Frontiers in Endocrinology, 9, 117. PubMed

2. King, R., Wells, J. R., Krieg, P., et al. (1992). Production and characterization of recombinant insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) and potent analogues of IGF-I, with Gly or Arg substituted for Glu3. Journal of Molecular Endocrinology, 8(1), 29-41. PubMed

3. Ross, M., Francis, G. L., Szabo, L., Wallace, J. C., & Ballard, F. J. (1989). Insulin-like growth factor (IGF) binding proteins inhibit the biological activities of IGF-1 and IGF-2 but not des-(1-3)-IGF-1. Biochemical Journal, 258(1), 267-272. PubMed

4. Adashi, E. Y., Resnick, C. E., Ricciarelli, E., et al. (1992). Granulosa cell-derived insulin-like growth factor binding proteins are inhibitory to IGF-I hormonal action. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 90(3), 968-975. PubMed

5. Conlon, M. A., Tomas, F. M., Owens, P. C., et al. (1995). Long R3 insulin-like growth factor-I infusion stimulates organ growth but reduces plasma IGF-I, IGF-II and IGF binding protein concentrations in the guinea pig. Journal of Endocrinology, 146(2), 247-253. PubMed

6. Steeb, C. B., Shoubridge, C. A., Tivey, D. R., & Read, L. C. (1997). Systemic infusion of IGF-I or LR(3)IGF-I stimulates visceral organ growth and proliferation of gut tissues in suckling rats. American Journal of Physiology, 272(3 Pt 1), G522-G533. PubMed

7. Barton, N. V., Gowda, H. N., & Dankel, S. J. (2026). A systematic review and meta-analysis examining if hyperplasia occurs in humans in response to resistance exercise. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 66(2), 251-257. PubMed

8. Jacquemin, V., Furling, D., Bigot, A., Butler-Browne, G. S., & Mouly, V. (2004). IGF-1 induces human myotube hypertrophy by increasing cell recruitment. Experimental Cell Research, 299(1), 148-158. PubMed

9. Bilan, P. J., Mitsumoto, Y., Ramlal, T., & Klip, A. (1992). Acute and long-term effects of insulin-like growth factor I on glucose transporters in muscle cells. FEBS Letters, 298(2-3), 285-290. PubMed

10. Russell-Jones, D. L., Umpleby, A. M., Shojaee-Moradie, F., et al. (1997). The effect of an intravenous infusion of IGF-I and insulin on IGFBP-1, IGFBP-3, acid labile subunit, free and bound IGF-I, catecholamines and potassium in normal volunteers. Clinical Endocrinology, 47(6), 685-691. PubMed

11. Kerr, D., Tamborlane, W. V., Rife, F., & Sherwin, R. S. (1993). Effect of insulin-like growth factor-1 on the responses to and recognition of hypoglycemia in humans: a comparison with insulin. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 91(1), 141-147. PubMed

12. Schrank, Y., Fontes, R., Perozo, A. F. D. F., et al. (2024). Proposal for fasting insulin and HOMA-IR reference intervals based on an extensive Brazilian laboratory database. Archives of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 68, e230371. PubMed

13. Mori, K., Iwasaki, Y., Kawasaki-Ogita, Y., et al. (2013). Improvement of insulin resistance following transsphenoidal surgery in patients with acromegaly: correlation with serum IGF-I levels. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, 36(10), 853-859. PubMed

14. Stelmachowska-Banas, M., Zdunowski, P., & Zgliczynski, W. (2009). Abnormalities in glucose homeostasis in acromegaly. Endokrynologia Polska, 60(1), 57-62. PubMed

15. Khan, M. Z., Zugaza, J. L., & Torres Aleman, I. (2024). The signaling landscape of insulin-like growth factor 1. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 300(2), 105505. PubMed

16. Guo, X., Fu, H., Pang, H., & Xing, B. (2018). Risk of left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic and systolic dysfunction in acromegaly: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 48, 148-154. PubMed

17. Hinojosa-Amaya, J. M., et al. (2021). Echocardiographic findings in acromegaly: prevalence of concentric left ventricular remodeling in a large single-center cohort. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, 45(1), 111-119. PubMed

18. Dekkers, O. M., Biermasz, N. R., Pereira, A. M., Romijn, J. A., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2008). Mortality in acromegaly: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 93(1), 61-67. PubMed

19. Rokkas, T., Pistiolas, D., Sechopoulos, P., Margantinis, G., & Koukoulis, G. (2008). Risk of colorectal neoplasm in patients with acromegaly: a meta-analysis. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 14(22), 3484-3489. PubMed

20. Travis, R. C., Appleby, P. N., Martin, R. M., et al. (2016). A meta-analysis of individual participant data reveals an association between circulating levels of IGF-I and prostate cancer risk. Cancer Research, 76(8), 2288-2300. PubMed

21. Endogenous Hormones and Breast Cancer Collaborative Group. (2010). Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), IGF binding protein 3 (IGFBP3), and breast cancer risk: pooled individual data analysis of 17 prospective studies. Lancet Oncology, 11(6), 530-542. PubMed

22. Castagna, G., Ippolito, S., Cassibba, S., et al. (2025). Kidney function in acromegaly: evidence from a long-term observational study. Pituitary, 28(3). PubMed

23. Ozkurt, S., Ozakin, E., Gungor, H., & Yalcin, A. U. (2023). Assessment of renal function of bodybuilders using anabolic androgenic steroids and diet supplements. Cureus, 15(9), e44688. PubMed

24. Niederkofler, E. E., Phillips, D. A., Krastins, B., et al. (2013). Targeted selected reaction monitoring mass spectrometric immunoassay for insulin-like growth factor 1. PLoS One, 8(11), e81125. PubMed

25. Mongongu, C., Coudore, F., Domergue, V., et al. (2021). Detection of LongR3-IGF-I, Des(1-3)-IGF-I, and R3-IGF-I using immunopurification and high resolution mass spectrometry for antidoping purposes. Drug Testing and Analysis, 13(7), 1256-1269. PubMed

26. Giustina, A., Biermasz, N., Casanueva, F. F., et al. (2024). Consensus on criteria for acromegaly diagnosis and remission. Pituitary, 27(1), 7-22. PubMed

27. Chapman, I. M., Bach, M. A., Van Cauter, E., et al. (1996). Stimulation of the growth hormone (GH)-insulin-like growth factor I axis by daily oral administration of a GH secretagogue (MK-677) in healthy elderly subjects. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 81(12), 4249-4257. PubMed

28. Nass, R., Pezzoli, S. S., Oliveri, M. C., et al. (2008). Effects of an oral ghrelin mimetic on body composition and clinical outcomes in healthy older adults: a randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 149(9), 601-611. PubMed

29. Teichman, S. L., Neale, A., Lawrence, B., et al. (2006). Prolonged stimulation of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor I secretion by CJC-1295, a long-acting analog of GH-releasing hormone, in healthy adults. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 91(3), 799-805. PubMed

30. Ionescu, M., & Frohman, L. A. (2006). Pulsatile secretion of growth hormone persists during continuous stimulation by CJC-1295, a long-acting GH-releasing hormone analog. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 91(12), 4792-4797. PubMed

31. Stanley, T. L., Falutz, J., Marsolais, C., et al. (2012). Reduction in visceral adiposity is associated with an improved metabolic profile in HIV-infected patients receiving tesamorelin. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 54(11), 1642-1651. PubMed

32. Kim, S.-H., & Park, M.-J. (2017). Effects of growth hormone on glucose metabolism and insulin resistance in human. Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism, 22(3), 145-152. PubMed

33. Tomas, F. M., Lemmey, A. B., Read, L. C., & Ballard, F. J. (1996). Superior potency of infused IGF-I analogues which bind poorly to IGF-binding proteins is maintained when administered by injection. Journal of Endocrinology, 150(1), 77-84. PubMed

34. Suslin, I. A., Efimenko, I. V., Castrellon, R., & Husain, T. M. (2024). Abdominal hypertrophy syndrome: characteristics and potential pathophysiology. Cureus, 16(10), e72216. PubMed