Rich is the first to tell you it's his thoughts/theory. He tells you what he's tried and what works for him. He never claims to be backed by science or even have the best way. He just talks straight about what he does . If you watch the video he comes off as genuine
From what I am hearing from him, whenever someone disagrees with him...or contradicts his "theory" with science (in addition to experience), he attacks them, saying they don't know what they are talking about because they are only repeating what they heard. Obviously, there are a LOT of guys online...and he's right that many of them don't know much, but a decent portion which are indeed very knowldgable, so this does not apply to everyone.
Here are my thoughts on some of what he said...
1.) Rick: "All IGF-1 is fake!"
There have been many opinions on the quality of IGF-1 on the market today...and as someone with considerable experience not only with personal use, but in working for multiple peptide companies, forming close associations within the industry, and recieving feedback from literally 100's if not 1,000's of people who have used these products at this point, I have STRONG views on the subject. First of all, it is important to differentiate between the various types of IGF-1 today, of which there are two primary types in use (for the most pat). These are DES and LR3. I have used DES from numerous companies and have had MANY bad experiences. Like Rich, I have often wondered if there was any legitimate DES (I am assuming he is referring to DES, as LR3 should not be used pre-workout) in the products at all, as they appeared to do absolutely nothing. Only once did I use a DES product which seemed to work. So, in my opinion there is only one of two things going on here. Either there is real DES in these products and DES just doesn't work very well...or it is fake and/or severely under-dosed. I believe the latter is the case.
Now, it is a different story with LR3 altogethr. On many occasions I have used LR3 which did indeed work well...and on more than one occasion samples from these batches were submitted for labwork with positive results. Of couse, I do not believe all LR3 is good, but it is certainly NOT impossible to find by any means.
2.) Rich: "GH is the same thing as IGF-1"
Not even close. IGF-1 and GH are tow seperate compounds, which supply entirely different effects in the body. However, GH will elevate IGF-1 levels by increasing production of liver-made IGF-1. This IGF-1 is systematic in nature and affects the entire body. I won't even begin to elucidate on the differences between these 2 compounds, other than to say they are quite diverse in their effects, working to elicit change through different mechnaims entirely.
3.) Rich: "IGF-1 is better"
Define better? Better for stimulating protein syntheis? Yes, absolutely. GH itself, while providing some direct anabolic activity, is relatively inactive in this respect, instead achieving the majority of its growth promoting effects indirectly via liver produced IGF-1. So, using exogenous GH will assist with growth, but it is not due directly to the GH molecule itself. In terms olf lipolysis, GH is far superior, accelerating lipolysis on dose-dependent basis. When looking at IGF-1, we see a compound which does a rather poor job of increasing lipolysis. When looking at these 2 peptides overall, GH is certainly the more comprehensive compound, supplying a wide range of effects, while IGF-1 can be viewed as a more targeted peptide, which enhances growth through both its insulin-like activity, as well as playing a role in the complex proliferation-differentiation process. The "better" hormone is the one which provides the effects the indvidual is most looking for.
4.) Rich: "Abdominal injections of GH have led to the distension we see in BB'rs today"
.
Injecting GH diretcly into the muscle does not have a local growth promoting effect. Rich surmises that GH's ability to cause lipolysis at the injection site is a sign that it will also cause growth at the injection site. This theory is flawed in its approach, it is reflects an improper understanding of the mechanisms by which GH causes both fat loss and muscle growth. GH causes fat loss at the injection site simply because the GH molecule itself exhibits lipolytic activity. Therefore, by administering an injection directly into a lump of fat cells, the rate of lipolysis in that area will increase disproportionately to the rest of the body. However, in oder for the GH molecule to promote muscle growth, it must first enter into circulation and travel to the liver, where liver mediated IGF-1 production will then takes place. Once IGF-1 production has been stimulated, the resultant IGF-1 will enter into the bloodstream, where it effects will become systematic, attaching to any receptor sites it comes in contact with without partilality.
5.) Rich: "Slin is not dangerois if you know what youlre doing".
I agree with this for the most part. Of course, there will always be risk factors present, but by and large, insulin can be administered safely by those who possess the requisite level of knowledge.
6.) Rich: "Taking GH before bed will hinder endogenous GH release"
This is correct. Exogenous GH has a rather long active life in the body. Therefore, it is best administered in the am "IF" the indvidual is seeking to simultaneously capitolize on both his exogenous use and endogenous production. However, for those guys using large amounts of exogeous Gh, it makes little difference. As far as whether or not to use Gh on an empty stomach, it depends on the user's priorities. If the user wants to take full advantge of Gh's fat los effects, then by all means, take it on an empty stomach, as it is not possible to maximize oxidation when blood sufar is levated, which will occur after a meal.
Again, overall, I find Rich to be an interesting guy, but I would HIGHLY suggest that he does some research on the topics he is going to discuss before going on the show, as this will ultimately gain him more respect as an advisor.