Is IGF-1 LR3 banned in sport?

Yes. IGF-1 and its analogues are in WADA class S2, prohibited at all times in and out of competition.

Does modifying the molecule avoid the classification?

No. The list extends to related substances and mimetics specifically so that structural modification creates no exemption.

Is prohibited status the same as being unlicensed?

No, they are separate frameworks. LR3 happens to be both prohibited in sport and unlicensed as a medicine.

IGF-1 LR3

IGF-1 LR3 and Anti-Doping Status

JMWritten & reviewed by Jack Muncaster · Founder, UK PeptidesLast reviewed 2026-08-233 cited sources

IGF-1 and its analogues appear on the WADA Prohibited List under class S2 — peptide hormones, growth factors, related substances and mimetics — prohibited at all times, both in and out of competition.

Key facts

WADA class: S2
Class covers: Peptide hormones, growth factors, mimetics
Prohibited: At all times — in and out of competition
Covers analogues: Yes — engineered forms included
Also in S2: Growth hormone and its secretagogues
Marketing authorisation: None for LR3

What class S2 is

Peptide hormones, growth factors, related substances and mimetics. It covers growth hormone, its releasing factors and secretagogues, erythropoietin and related agents, and the IGF-1 family. These are substances that act on endogenous signalling systems, which is what groups them.

What prohibited at all times means

Some substances are prohibited only in competition, on the reasoning that their effect is acute. S2 substances are prohibited in and out of competition, because their effects develop over time and out-of-competition use would otherwise carry the benefit into competition. Testing applies year-round.

Research material referenced

IGF-1 LR3 1mg — third-party HPLC tested

View — £37.99

Why analogues are covered explicitly

The list names substances and then extends to related substances and mimetics, precisely so that a structural modification does not create an exemption. An engineered IGF-1 analogue with an N-terminal extension and a substitution is squarely within that scope — the modification is the reason the wording exists.

The separate regulatory position

Anti-doping and medicines regulation are different frameworks. IGF-1 LR3 holds no marketing authorisation from any regulator, which is a separate fact from its prohibited status. A compound can be prohibited in sport and licensed as a medicine — mecasermin is — or, as here, prohibited and unlicensed both.

Why this site states it plainly

Because anyone competing under an anti-doping code needs the information without having to infer it. Material supplied here is for laboratory research only, and nothing about the research context alters what the Prohibited List covers.

Extended research context

The IGF-1 LR3 deep dive

Deep dive: the design that runs backwards from everything else here

Almost every engineered compound in this catalogue solves the same problem in the same direction. Semaglutide attaches a C18 diacid, retatrutide and tirzepatide a C20, all to bind serum albumin and extend duration. CJC-1295's DAC goes further and binds albumin covalently at Cys34. The strategy throughout is to add binding, so the molecule survives longer in circulation. IGF-1 LR3 does the reverse. Its two modifications - arginine replacing glutamate at position 3, and a thirteen-residue N-terminal extension - exist to REMOVE binding, specifically to the IGF binding proteins that sequester the overwhelming majority of circulating IGF-1 in a ternary complex with IGFBP-3 and the acid-labile subunit. Same bound-free equilibrium, engineered in the opposite direction. The reason is that the two families face opposite constraints: an incretin peptide is cleared too fast to be useful, while IGF-1 is held too tightly to be available. Baxter's 1994 review in Hormone Research is the standard account of just how tightly.

Deep dive: a certificate written for the wrong failure mode

This is a recombinant protein, and it fails differently from everything else on this site. A synthetic peptide accumulates deletion sequences, because each coupling is slightly less than complete - at 99% efficiency a 39-mer finishes around 68% full-length, and those impurities differ by one residue's mass and show up in a mass spectrum. Ribosomal synthesis does not fail that way at all; a host cell builds the protein correctly or not at all. What contaminates the product instead is everything else the cell contained: host cell proteins, host DNA, and in bacterial systems endotoxin, which is not a protein, does not appear in a protein purity figure, and needs its own assay entirely. Layered on top is a failure mode with no peptide equivalent. This protein has three disulfide bonds, meaning six cysteines that can pair fifteen ways of which one is correct - and Milner and colleagues showed in the Biochemical Journal in 1995 that B-domain mutations influence oxidative folding, which is directly relevant since position 3 sits in the B-domain. A misfolded isomer has identical mass, identical composition, and is invisible to mass spectrometry. A certificate reading exactly like a synthetic peptide's is testing for problems this production route does not have while missing the ones it does.

Deep dive: an approved relative, and why that raises the risk rather than lowering it

Unusually for this catalogue, a licensed IGF-1 medicine exists. Mecasermin, marketed as Increlex, is recombinant human IGF-1 with an FDA label and a subcutaneous route, used in severe primary IGF-1 deficiency - Petriczko and colleagues reported on it in 2019 and Denaite and colleagues in Frontiers in Pediatrics in 2024. That is a real approval with real clinical evidence. It covers the native seventy-residue hormone. LR3 is an eighty-three-residue engineered analogue whose defining feature is deliberately altered binding behaviour, holds no marketing authorisation anywhere, and has essentially no primary literature under its own name - searches for IGF-1 LR3 and Long R3 IGF-1 return nothing. A nearby approval invites the inference that the analogue is somehow covered by it, and that inference is the most consequential error available in this category. Separately and unconditionally: IGF-1 and its analogues sit in WADA class S2, prohibited at all times, with the list extending to related substances and mimetics precisely so that structural modification creates no exemption.

Research applications

▸Cell culture supplementation where secreted IGFBPs confound dosing
▸IGF binding protein interaction and affinity studies
▸Recombinant protein expression and purification methodology
▸Disulfide folding and oxidative refolding research
▸Comparative work on engineered versus native growth factors
▸Anti-doping analytical method development

Handling checklist

✓Expect no PubChem record - proteins are indexed in UniProt (native IGF-1 is P05019)
✓Read the certificate for host cell protein, host DNA and endotoxin, not deletion sequences
✓Understand that mass spectrometry cannot detect a misfolded disulfide isomer
✓Treat loss of fold as the principal failure mode - it leaves mass unchanged
✓Avoid shaking and foaming; interfaces unfold proteins and aggregation is irreversible
✓Use low-binding consumables; adsorption is significant at microgram quantities
✓Aliquot before freezing - freeze-thaw is worse for a folded protein than a short peptide

Common research-handling mistakes

Learnt from thousands of researcher orders across our UK labs.

✗ Reading mecasermin's approval as covering IGF-1 LR3

Fix: Increlex is native 70-residue rhIGF-1. LR3 is an 83-residue engineered analogue with altered binding, unlicensed everywhere. The approval does not transfer.

✗ Expecting a synthetic-peptide certificate for a recombinant protein

Fix: There are no deletion sequences here. The relevant tests are host cell protein, host DNA, endotoxin and something addressing conformation.

✗ Treating a clean mass spectrum as proof the protein is intact

Fix: A misfolded disulfide isomer has identical mass and composition. Only an activity or conformational assay addresses folding.

✗ Assuming absence from PubChem is a red flag

Fix: It is expected for a protein of this size - PubChem indexes small molecules, UniProt indexes proteins. This is unlike retatrutide, where absence is genuinely odd.

✗ Reading the cell-culture rationale as transferable

Fix: Bypassing IGFBP regulation is useful in a dish, where it is an experimental nuisance. In an organism the same system regulates a growth factor acting on nearly every tissue.

Continue researching

Peer-reviewed guides, comparators and matched reference materials.

Frequently asked questions

Is IGF-1 LR3 banned in sport?: Yes. IGF-1 and its analogues are in WADA class S2, prohibited at all times in and out of competition.
Does modifying the molecule avoid the classification?: No. The list extends to related substances and mimetics specifically so that structural modification creates no exemption.
Is prohibited status the same as being unlicensed?: No, they are separate frameworks. LR3 happens to be both prohibited in sport and unlicensed as a medicine.

Primary sources & clinical trials

Peer-reviewed research and registered trials from PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubChem, FDA and NIH. All links open in a new tab and point to the primary source, so every claim can be verified at origin.

Written and reviewed by

Jack Muncaster · Founder, UK Peptides

Jack founded UK Peptides in Manchester after repeatedly receiving research compounds with missing or recycled paperwork. He is responsible for supplier selection, batch release decisions and the content published in this research library. Every article here is sourced to primary literature and every product page to a signed third-party certificate.

How we write and check this content Report a factual error in this article

Popular across the research hub

One flagship guide from every other research category — keep exploring.

← Back to Forum