Do you plan to blast in old age (40+)?

[narta]

I see your point, but I figure test is pretty healthy but if I start adding in hgh and insulin, it increases my risk of cancer etc…. I’m trying to minimize risks. It’s like saying since you drink, you mind as well smoke too cause drinking isn’t healthy.

Nah, HGH is not carcinogenic, IF you have an active cancer it will speed it up. If that was the case, decades of HEAVY HGH usage in the bb community would have been plagued by cancers.

As for insulin, not needed for the vast majority of people, including moderate HGH users. One can mediate insulin sensitivity with other means if the need arises from HGH usage like metformin or glp-1s.

 

[egruberman]

If you care about longevity, lower your protein intake, quit resistance training, up the low intensity cardio, quit alcohol, use metformin and whatever suppresses igf1.

All of the data that show an increase in longevity from protein restriction and specifically an inhibition of mTOR signaling come from rodent studies. Humans are not rodents. Rodents tend to die of different things than humans.

There is a plausible mechanism of action that suggests that some amount of mTOR inhibition in humans may increase longevity, but there's no data supporting that. Right now, there is no good scientific consensus on what body composition is optimal for longevity.

What is well understood is the fact that sarcopenia and loss of bone density are huge issues for folks that make it into their later years. Older folks also tend to absorb protein less well as they age. For these reasons, it's probably a good idea to continue resistance training and keep the protein high for the benefit of longevity.

In general, I still don't understand why anyone who is not involved in competing and/or making money out of their body would ever consider getting involved with using insulin.

I share you feelings on this. It's a risky endeavor, maybe worthwhile if one wants to get really goddamn huge, but that's more of a young person's game.

 

[Theworm]

Nah, HGH is not carcinogenic, IF you have an active cancer it will speed it up. If that was the case, decades of HEAVY HGH usage in the bb community would have been plagued by cancers.

As for insulin, not needed for the vast majority of people, including moderate HGH users. One can mediate insulin sensitivity with other means if the need arises from HGH usage like metformin or glp-1s.

How are you or anyone sure they don’t have cancer? Some prostate cancer starts at a very young age and go un noticed for decades. I for one, just had a total body mri and found my prostate is enlarged (normal psa) and I have a .5 cm nodule on my pancreas , who knows what it is, I’ll get scanned again in 6 months, but my point is, how would anyone know unless getting yearly MRIs like I do?

 

[malfeasance]

How are you or anyone sure they don’t have cancer? Some prostate cancer starts at a very young age and go un noticed for decades. I for one, just had a total body mri and found my prostate is enlarged (normal psa) and I have a .5 cm nodule on my pancreas , who knows what it is, I’ll get scanned again in 6 months, but my point is, how would anyone know unless getting yearly MRIs like I do?

Hope you are ok

 

[malfeasance]

This was early 50s

Now late 50s focusing more on health and not on competing

 

[Theworm]

Hope you are ok

Thanks, docs don’t seemed concerned, just will reimage it in a few months. Even if cancer, pancreatic cancer can be cured IF caught early.

 

[Theworm]

This was early 50s

Now late 50s focusing more on health and not on competing

Look fantastic! What changed in a few years?

 

[bigMoJo]

How are you or anyone sure they don’t have cancer? Some prostate cancer starts at a very young age and go un noticed for decades. I for one, just had a total body mri and found my prostate is enlarged (normal psa) and I have a .5 cm nodule on my pancreas , who knows what it is, I’ll get scanned again in 6 months, but my point is, how would anyone know unless getting yearly MRIs like I do?

@Theworm Are you paying for MRI yourself or through insurance? I have a place that will do full body ultra-sound, or whatever part you want. I took my mom there when she had pain taking a pee and her doctor appt was 4 weeks out... too long to wait without going to the ER. For $96.00 same-day scan (just the abdominal organs) showed kidney stones. Full body is $300. However, I think MRI's run in the $1000's.

 

[egruberman]

The data on full body MRI at this time are not good. The risk is that they lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. There is no evidence of improved outcomes from them. Finally, even if the imaging is good, they can identify issues that would take a host of professionals to interpret and evaluate.

As an example, most folks of advanced age, have some degree of herniation in their spinal discs. Most folks have some damage in their various labrum or menisci. Interpretation of the imaging necessary to determine if an intervention is required takes a specialist in those areas. My general take on it so far is that it's a costly fishing expedition that yields little benefit.

 

[Theworm]

@Theworm Are you paying for MRI yourself or through insurance? I have a place that will do full body ultra-sound, or whatever part you want. I took my mom there when she had pain taking a pee and her doctor appt was 4 weeks out... too long to wait without going to the ER. For $96.00 same-day scan (just the abdominal organs) showed kidney stones. Full body is $300. However, I think MRI's run in the $1000's.

Prenuvo scan… 2100 cash

 

[Theworm]

The data on full body MRI at this time are not good. The risk is that they lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. There is no evidence of improved outcomes from them. Finally, even if the imaging is good, they can identify issues that would take a host of professionals to interpret and evaluate.

As an example, most folks of advanced age, have some degree of herniation in their spinal discs. Most folks have some damage in their various labrum or menisci. Interpretation of the imaging necessary to determine if an intervention is required takes a specialist in those areas. My general take on it so far is that it's a costly fishing expedition that yields little benefit.

I don’t care what studies show, I know if I catch something early, the odds are much greater of survival. I don’t need a study to show me. Also, I had a close friend, mammo normal, but picked up early breast cancer on mri scan. Another friend died of a brain aneurysm, if she scanned annually, I feel like she would catch it small and be alive today. Another person, they caught kidney cancer on a scan of their gallbladder etc etc

 

[egruberman]

I don’t care what studies show, I know if I catch something early, the odds are much greater of survival.

Of course, but the data suggests that a full body MRI doesn't catch things early at least sufficiently to change outcomes in a statistically significant way. That's not to say that the data is perfect, just that there's no proven benefit as yet. If you feel it's a benefit, then by all means, spend the money. It's just not something I would generally recommend to folks.

 

[Theworm]

Of course, but the data suggests that a full body MRI doesn't catch things early at least sufficiently to change outcomes in a statistically significant way. That's not to say that the data is perfect, just that there's no proven benefit as yet. If you feel it's a benefit, then by all means, spend the money. It's just not something I would generally recommend to folks.

Why not recommend? Why get any screening then? Why get mammograms or colonoscopies? I would find it impossible to believe if they scanned one milllion people yearly since age 10 vs followed a control of no screening, that outcomes would be much better in the group who got screened. Again, absence of evidence (so far) doesn’t mean evidence of absence.

 

[Theworm]

Also, most are against full body mri for various reasons IMO. One, people hate people with the means to get one, generally. Two, insurance companies are a huge biz, why spend all that money for all their patients? Sadly the USA health system is catch people close to death, not so much preventing disease etc …

 

[egruberman]

Why not recommend?

Because the data show that they don't improve outcomes and do cause harm in some circumstances. My opinion (not based on data) is that the technology isn't sufficiently well developed to be useful.

Why get mammograms or colonoscopies?

Outcomes are improved when these tests are performed.

I would find it impossible to believe if they scanned one milllion people yearly since age 10 vs followed a control of no screening, that outcomes would be much better in the group who got screened

If they were scanned yearly and underwent a series of unnecessary medical interventions as a result, that wouldn't be considered to be "better".

absence of evidence (so far) doesn’t mean evidence of absence.

Which is why I suggested that if you feel that it's helpful, then by all means. It my be. Outside of over-diagnosis, it is not harmful, and that's certainly something a prudent individual can mitigate. Unlike, for example certain kinds of CT scans which expose folks to levels of radiation that could cause direct harm.

Also, most are against full body mri for various reasons IMO. One, people hate people with the means to get one, generally. Two, insurance companies are a huge biz, why spend all that money for all their patients? Sadly the USA health system is catch people close to death, not so much preventing disease etc …

I don't fall into the category of folks that lack the means to get one. As for insurance companies, they tend to get reamed for the cost of an MRI and so understandably would want to limit expenditures where not completely necessary. A full body MRI is generally a few thousand dollars. I got an MRI for a spinal issue a few years back for which the hospital billed my insurance roughly $10k. Friend of mine paid $200 out of pocket for a similar MRI in Thailand.

In support of your point, it is an interesting prevention tool, but so far, doesn't seem all that useful, at least to the extent that I would spend money on it. I'm hopeful that if its more broadly used, that it will eventually demonstrate an improvemenet in outcomes.

 

[Theworm]

Because the data show that they don't improve outcomes and do cause harm in some circumstances. My opinion (not based on data) is that the technology isn't sufficiently well developed to be useful.


Outcomes are improved when these tests are performed.



If they were scanned yearly and underwent a series of unnecessary medical interventions as a result, that wouldn't be considered to be "better".


Which is why I suggested that if you feel that it's helpful, then by all means. It my be. Outside of over-diagnosis, it is not harmful, and that's certainly something a prudent individual can mitigate. Unlike, for example certain kinds of CT scans which expose folks to levels of radiation that could cause direct harm.



I don't fall into the category of folks that lack the means to get one. As for insurance companies, they tend to get reamed for the cost of an MRI and so understandably would want to limit expenditures where not completely necessary. A full body MRI is generally a few thousand dollars. I got an MRI for a spinal issue a few years back for which the hospital billed my insurance roughly $10k. Friend of mine paid $200 out of pocket for a similar MRI in Thailand.

In support of your point, it is an interesting prevention tool, but so far, doesn't seem all that useful, at least to the extent that I would spend money on it. I'm hopeful that if its more broadly used, that it will eventually demonstrate an improvemenet in outcomes.

Ok, respect your opinion. I just see in 10 years more evidence as more are now getting them…

Me personally, I’d rather get over diagnosed than under diagnosed.