Elevated IGF1, Cancer Risk and more...just looking for some input

[Masterchief07]

Alright, so I'm just looking for some input here to try and figure a few things out. In reality, it seems to come down to one thing, that being the age old adage of the cure being worse than the disease. But I digress because I refuse to give up and learning as much as humanly possible about all of this seems to be the only way I'll be satisfied. So, lets get into it.

HGH--the wonder drug, the fountain of youth, etc, etc. We all know how beneficial it can be from improving mood, to enhanced fat loss, to more efficient muscle and tissue repair, to overall improvement of the body's functions. Its seemingly a no brainer---why wouldn't we all take it, right? Well, that's what I had been doing. I started taking HGH a few months back, at therapeutic doses (3-4iu ED) to assist in repairing an injury. Suffice to say, it has without question helped.

HOWEVER, since we should never be content with what we know and don't, I kept digging and eventually came across this: IGF-1’s Link to Cancer

That's just one article detailing the risks of elevated IGF1 with relation to cancer and other health issues, but the relationship is uncanny and there are several studies scattered across the internet to back up the claims. Namely, issues of concern are (which most of us know already, I hope):

-Elevated IGF1 has the potential to accelerate the growth of existing cancers/tumors (everyone should have known this)
-If you are genetically predisposed to have cancer, elevated IGF1 can accelerate the process
-Now this is the most concerning bit to me. IGF1 obviously is a cell growth promoter. And all of our cells have lifespans, as in they are eventually programmed to die at a certain point. The issue is, some of these cells that should die (for reasons of age or damage or what have you) are still being replicated due to the elevated IGF1 levels. So, technically speaking, by elevating our IGF1 to supraphysiological levels, we are potentially increasing our risk for cancer/carcinogenesis outside of the normal spectrum. I mean, yes, it could have happened regardless, but we are increasing the probability. See below...

"Existing experimental data have shown the proliferative and antiapoptotic effects of IGF-1, which would provide an environment that favours survival of genetically damaged cells. Even if such an environment had only a small influence on survival of such damaged cells, exposure to a large number of ‘at risk’ cells over many years, although not inducing cancer, could serve to accelerate carcinogenesis."

SOURCE: (Does growth hormone cause cancer?)

But then again, and even within that particular study, "even if GH/IGF-1 therapy does result in a small increase in cancer risk compared with untreated patients with GH deficiency, it is likely that the eventual risk will be the same as the general population. Such a restoration to normality will need to be balanced against the known increased morbidity of untreated GH deficiency. However, these in vitro effects countenance strongly against the use of rGH or rhIGF-I as an ‘elixir of youth’ in adults with an intact GH/IGF-I axis."

Mind you, they are only talking about the restoration of GH to NORMAL levels, not above normal. And that's what worries me. Most of these studies only consider/study those with an inherent deficiency and their medically induced return to normal which, as per the study, increases their relative risk back to the normal range. Taking all of this into account, it seems like the logical conclusion would be that at supraphysiological levels, we are knowingly increasing our risk beyond the normal limits, right?

So, "why risk it?," is what I am asking myself. What are your thoughts?

 

[AlphaLife]

Alright, so I'm just looking for some input here to try and figure a few things out. In reality, it seems to come down to one thing, that being the age old adage of the cure being worse than the disease. But I digress because I refuse to give up and learning as much as humanly possible about all of this seems to be the only way I'll be satisfied. So, lets get into it.

HGH--the wonder drug, the fountain of youth, etc, etc. We all know how beneficial it can be from improving mood, to enhanced fat loss, to more efficient muscle and tissue repair, to overall improvement of the body's functions. Its seemingly a no brainer---why wouldn't we all take it, right? Well, that's what I had been doing. I started taking HGH a few months back, at therapeutic doses (3-4iu ED) to assist in repairing an injury. Suffice to say, it has without question helped.

HOWEVER, since we should never be content with what we know and don't, I kept digging and eventually came across this: IGF-1’s Link to Cancer

That's just one article detailing the risks of elevated IGF1 with relation to cancer and other health issues, but the relationship is uncanny and there are several studies scattered across the internet to back up the claims. Namely, issues of concern are (which most of us know already, I hope):

-Elevated IGF1 has the potential to accelerate the growth of existing cancers/tumors (everyone should have known this)
-If you are genetically predisposed to have cancer, elevated IGF1 can accelerate the process
-Now this is the most concerning bit to me. IGF1 obviously is a cell growth promoter. And all of our cells have lifespans, as in they are eventually programmed to die at a certain point. The issue is, some of these cells that should die (for reasons of age or damage or what have you) are still being replicated due to the elevated IGF1 levels. So, technically speaking, by elevating our IGF1 to supraphysiological levels, we are potentially increasing our risk for cancer/carcinogenesis outside of the normal spectrum. I mean, yes, it could have happened regardless, but we are increasing the probability. See below...

"Existing experimental data have shown the proliferative and antiapoptotic effects of IGF-1, which would provide an environment that favours survival of genetically damaged cells. Even if such an environment had only a small influence on survival of such damaged cells, exposure to a large number of ‘at risk’ cells over many years, although not inducing cancer, could serve to accelerate carcinogenesis."

SOURCE: (Does growth hormone cause cancer?)

But then again, and even within that particular study, "even if GH/IGF-1 therapy does result in a small increase in cancer risk compared with untreated patients with GH deficiency, it is likely that the eventual risk will be the same as the general population. Such a restoration to normality will need to be balanced against the known increased morbidity of untreated GH deficiency. However, these in vitro effects countenance strongly against the use of rGH or rhIGF-I as an ‘elixir of youth’ in adults with an intact GH/IGF-I axis."

Mind you, they are only talking about the restoration of GH to NORMAL levels, not above normal. And that's what worries me. Most of these studies only consider/study those with an inherent deficiency and their medically induced return to normal which, as per the study, increases their relative risk back to the normal range. Taking all of this into account, it seems like the logical conclusion would be that at supraphysiological levels, we are knowingly increasing our risk beyond the normal limits, right?

So, "why risk it?," is what I am asking myself. What are your thoughts?

Your hypothesis is logical and follows from what you cited, but is not proven and has not been tested to my knowledge.

 

[Masterchief07]

Seemingly so, hence why its driving me a bit crazy. Logically it makes sense, but I cannot seem to find anything definitive.

 

[Doug_S]

This reminds me of the bone morphogenic protein studies. In a nutshell, any chemical that has high bioactivity and causes rapid cellular division has the potential to influence cancer.

Still, remember there must be a mutagenic change of the DNA either genetically caused or environmentally caused.

So, as for risk, it is so tricky. Inactive reference above I noted moist snuff, which MAY DOUBLE your oral cancer risk. Sounds bad, huh? What I'd I told you oral cancer risk is one case per two million people, so if you sip, it is now two cases in two million.

You have to watch how risk is presented in these things

 

[MassTurk]

@Dr JIM
@Michael Scally MD
Any substance to this arguement ?
I am intrigued on this also

 

[Masterchief07]

@Doug_S
Of course, without question. However, we can't know if the amount of GH present represents a linear regression in terms of effects. This particular study states that returning an individual to normal GH ranges from a deficiency also brings their probability of cancer/carcinogenesis to within normal ranges as well. But what was the probability in a GH deficient state? If we can obtain that number, we'd have a clearer picture. Worth noting, in their assessment of the mice studies, mice with 10% of the normal levels "show almost complete inhibition of growth of transplanted human breast cancer cells. In addition, serum from lit/lit mice was less mitogenic to breast cancer cells in vitro than control serum, a difference abolished by the addition of IGF-1 to the lit/lit serum." But again, that's mice.

Now, at elevated IGF, what I am wondering is if the effects are linear, exponential, or other. Like I stated above, we need to identify the probability correlation going from deficient to normal. But who knows if that even would hold true at higher levels, kind of like how a system can have predictable consequences within a normal range but things can go haywire above normal.

Nonetheless, also worth nothing is another study on mice here: http://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0032/ea0032oc1.1.htm (The consequences of changing endogenous GH/IGF1 levels on carcinogen-induced mammary gland tumorigenesis are dependent on metabolic status in mice)

"Under normal metabolic conditions (chow-diet), reduced endogenous GH/IGF1 levels in adults protect against mammary gland tumor formation, while elevated endogenous GH/IGF1 levels do not hasten tumor formation. However, under excessive caloric intake, elevated endogenous GH/IGF1 levels accelerate mammary gland tumor formation and progression, indicating the ultimate consequences of GH/IGF1 on breast tumors development is dependent on the metabolic status."

I'm trying to research whether or not any similar studies have been conducted on humans or if there exists any data from which we could extrapolate some sort of hypothesis.

 

[Doug_S]

Things in biology are rarely represented with an r-squared value of 1. It's ANOVAs are so popular.

Again, anything that increases mitosis should increase cancer, which is essentially mitosis gone awry.

The thing is, statistics are not people, obviously. Look at statins where doctors argue against preventative primary based upon number to treat to avoid a cardiac event. Statistically speaking, they are not worth it. However when you personalize the data for some families like mine, where famial hypercholesterolemia is a reality, you go on statins and you do it early.

Too many physicians forget that the world is not full of independent variable patients. Most have a bias.

To that end, if I had a strong familial or personal history of cancer, I would not touch the stuff despite what any study says.

 

[Dr JIM]

@Dr JIM
@Michael Scally MD
Any substance to this arguement ?
I am intrigued on this also

By what argument?

DNA/RNA errors occur every second yet almost all are inconsequential and do not result in the development
of dysplastic or anaplastic cell lines for a number of reasons.

One thing is clear, bc malignant cell formation is a multifactorial process, a declaration of INDIVIDUAL risk based on "environmental exposure/s" often becomes an "argument" over statistical mumbo jumbo, as it tends to overlook the importance of GENETICS. .

 

[Dr JIM]

That's not to suggest environmental RISK should be discounted but rather used in conjunction with an individual's genetic predisposition.

 

[Dr JIM]

I'm trying to research whether or not any similar studies have been conducted on humans or if there exists any data from which we could extrapolate some sort of hypothesis.

Because as you so aptly opined "but that's mice", I'd also suggest an effort to correlate the development of CA in mice to that of humans bc the association is loose at best.

Why are mice frequently used in "malignancy" studies?

To name a few;

- animal rights activists do not consider them worthy of "protest" or salvation (no kidding)

- are a mammalian species

- have a very short life span of 30-60 days

BUT bc of the considerable genetic and environmental differences bt humans and mice,
cancer research on the latter is at best interpreted with a grain of salt (AKA "an interesting read") with few exceptions.

Oh and there ARE a multitude of studies that have investigated the relationship bt IGF and the incidence of CA BUT like most studies of this nature, are inconclusive as the
controls are insufficient to differentiate the chicken VS egg
IMO.

To that end while there may be an association bt an elevated IGF and certain forms of CA, the WHO, WHAT, HOW and WHEN remain largely unknown.


Jim

 

[Doug_S]

If you have ever done a toxicology study in a lab, you know how difficult it is to maintain controls. Rats and mice are much easier to house in large numbers and cheaper too. When you are dosing in a chemical that costs thousands of dollars a gram, how much food the critter eats is definitely an issue. I spent a lot of time with Wistar rats. Kind of grew to like them.

 

[Masterchief07]

@Dr JIM @Doug_S
Thank you for the input, gentlemen. I really can't argue anything you've both said. To be honest, its just the unknown that is bothersome. But at this point, its seemingly something we all have to simply accept until the proper studies are done. No matter how much research I do at this moment in time, I'll never have anything definitive. Nonetheless, I'll keep on scouring and should I find anything applicable, I'll make sure to relay it. In any case, hopefully this thread will at least prove valuable to those pondering the same question.

 

[Dr JIM]

1) HGH--the wonder drug, the fountain of youth, etc, etc.

2) We all know how beneficial it can be from improving mood, to enhanced fat loss, to more efficient muscle and tissue repair, to overall improvement of the body's functions.

3) Its seemingly a no brainer---why wouldn't we all take it, right?

4) What are your thoughts?

1) according to non-evidenced based blogs, many of which are lining their pockets bc of "GH sales"

2) so why not add "heals Cancer" to a list full of PED board misinformation

3) bc MOST on PED forums believe what they NEED or WANT TO BELIEVE, to justify the use of ANY PED, and GH is no exception

4) How telling, yet your "trying" to better define the association bt GH/IGF and CA?

Similar to AAS, I'd suggest you better define the risks and/or benefits of GH when used in SUPRAPHYSIOLOGICAL quantities rather than extrapolate data from legitimate GH supplementation as a baseline for comparison.

A few ailments associated with significantly elevated GH levels are worth investigating namely; Acromegaly and Giganticism, as both have a reduced life span with considerably higher morbidity and mortality!

The data you and many other GH runners are seeking lies within the medical records of BB using such high GH dosages!

 

[ddp7]

well OP I know the Dr.Further's song.

Further is the Ken tamplin's head doctor.In the private section of that forum,we usually talked about the prosinger's medicine bc the throat is where from the money.I was a fan of the high levels of his training so I liked this issues.

Bottom line: The political further's argument is from my point of view a moral issue.He take some tricks of ayurveda and then say:"is the dr further method".

Further planning are just a smart vegan plans.If you are a massmedia vegan further IS the man,the same if you are an ex-addicted to harddrugs like the currently christian sir Ken Tamplin.

My .2 cents

 

[Masterchief07]

@Dr JIM

Just an FYI, there was definitely a hint of sarcasm in my main post with regard to the benefits. I understand that these blogs and websites embellish the facts and make HGH look like the second coming of Christ in a bottle (along with pretty much every other medication). And while we can only hope people take what they read with a grain of salt, unless it is explicitly backed by a verified study, its this type of misinformation that will cause and probably has caused so much strife amongst those whom chose to not adequately research every aspect of something before taking the plunge.

And Jim, I'm not stating that extrapolating data from the studies surrounding deficient/physiological levels will in any way relate to the consequences to be had at supraphysiological levels. I mean, it is certainly possible, but again, there is nothing definitive about that correlation. All I am aiming to do is paint a fuller picture to better understand HGH from every conceivable angle. I apologize if my post suggested otherwise.

Now, regarding your last bit about referencing the medical records of bodybuilders supplementing with GH. Wouldn't you agree that processing this information could yield wildly inaccurate results? I mean, we all know that the bodybuilding underground is shady. There is no control, no consistency, nothing unless at an elite level...and even then, who knows. I mean, just from listening to the idiots at the gyms I have been to, people lie about their doses, they think they know everything about anything and I'm certain this level of ignorance does not cease to exist beyond the amateur level. For instance, I could sit here and tell my doctor I am running 10iu's of GH when I know I am taking 4iu's but even then, is it really even 4ius's? Its a generic grade compound where, as we've seen in the assays, values are inconsistent. Unless the records are of monitored instances of verified, pharmaceutical grade compounds, I fail to see how anything derived would be unquestionably accurate. And please correct me if I am wrong. I'm not part of the bodybuilding world. If upper echelon athletes receive professional guidance, are monitored and are injecting pharma grade HGH compounds, excuse my ignorance.

Nonetheless, if you can point me in the right direction to where I can obtain some of these medical records, I'm pretty well versed in database programming and manipulation. I'd be happy to run some queries.

 

[ddp7]

Wow I dont watch "masterchief" or that class of garbage but this answer seems to be interesting...

 

[ddp7]

Too many a priori cultural assumptions. In Chile and Argentina, professional people do their thing based on the science of iron brotherhood. Nothing against this. But it is a silly circle hermetic that normal people can not break in order to obtain some profit. The sociological truth of the amateur in the United States, probably has a much higher cultural and theoretical base. Instead here parrots participate in competitions and many who do not use hcg during test use, believe it or not.