Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
intex
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
PM-Ace-Labs
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
sunrise2
PHARMAHGH1
kinglab
ganabol2
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
azteca
granabolic1
napsgear-210x65
advertise1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
esquel
YMSGIF210x65-Banner
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

Insulin like Growth Factor and Cancer

waterpolo

Banned
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
116
I have been researching the effects of increased levels of IGF-1 and cancer risk and have come across a number of studies that have linked higher levels of IGF-1 to cancer risk as well as mortality.

I'd be interested to hear everyone's reaction as these seem pretty conclusive; also, if you have any scientific background please chime in (i.e. an advanced degree or are proficient at interpreting empirical articles)

Alpha - please add some insight as well. As an MD I'm surprised that you have not come across these or have not brought this fact up (or perhaps you have)

One such study:

Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I and Cancer Mortality in Older Men

Abstract

Context: Although numerous studies have explored the relation of IGF-I with cancer incidence, few have investigated the association between IGF-I and cancer mortality.

Objective: This study examined the association of serum IGF-I levels with cancer mortality in older community-dwelling men.

Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted a prospective, population-based study of 633 men aged 50 yr and older (mean = 73) who attended a 1988–1991 research clinic visit when blood was obtained for measurement of IGF-I. Participants were followed for vital status through July 2006.

Main Outcome Measure: All-cancer mortality was assessed.

Results: Median IGF-I was 96 ng/ml. During the 18-yr follow-up, 368 deaths occurred; 74 (20%) were due to cancer. Cox regression analyses showed a significant quadratic association between IGF-I and all-cancer mortality (P = 0.039). Higher levels of IGF-I were associated with progressively higher risk of cancer death after adjusting for age, IGF-binding protein-1, adiposity, exercise, current smoking, and previous cancer. The adjusted risk of cancer death was statistically significant for IGF-I levels above 120 ng/ml, with magnitudes of effect ranging from 1.61 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.28–2.02] to 2.61 (95% CI = 1.46–4.64). For the 46% of men with IGF-I above 100 ng/ml, the risk of fatal cancer was 1.82 (95% CI = 1.11–2.96) compared to the risk with lower levels.

Conclusions: Higher serum IGF-I in older men is associated with increased risk of cancer death, independent of age, adiposity, lifestyle, and cancer history. These results suggest caution in the use of IGF-I-enhancing therapies to slow the adverse effects of aging.
 
WP I saw your post in the "READ THIS" thread and looked for and found your thread.

First thank you for bringing this up I know your intent is to inform and educate so we can make choices based on information rather than on rumor.

I went and found the study you reference, in fact found it cited in a number of places. What I found interesting was that I did not see where extraneous rHGH or IGF-1 was administered. I don't think it was in this study. The study simply noted a raised level of IGF-1 in those who had died from cancer.

While this is certainly something to note and consider, we have to be careful about cause and effect. Were the raised levels the causative factor or merely an indicator of some other issue that caused the cancer?

I have included a link that also has some more info on this topic. It does not negate nor support the study you cite, but it does inform on both sides.

IGF-1: Killer or Savior? | Iron Man Magazine

But I do think that its important that we look at issues such as these. Of course I would argue that any misuse or abuse of AAS will have deleterious effects on the human body. As with anything else in life, I believe moderation is the key.

Just my two cents, and that's probably a penny more than its worth!
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty knowledgeable about cause and effect relationships; this is something I actually hypothetically study.

I posted this study because it shows that raised levels of IGF-1 was predictive of cancer after controlling for other known predictive factors of cancer. Although this was an observational study and they did not use new quasi experimental methods (such as propensity score matching) in order to parse out cause and effect relationships, they did control for important factors that do in fact confound the relationship between IGF-1 and cancer.

I literally only looked at the available literature for only a half an hour and found numerous studies citing the link between raised levels of IGF-1 and cancer.

They did not administer exogenous IGF-1; however it does not matter. there are numerous posts on here that show that when exogenous GH or IGF is supplemented (or GH peptides) your IGF levels increase. For those that are using these indefinitely or for long periods of time, they are putting themselves at extreme risk for cancer. No one on this board is bringing this up and they are in fact saying that this is healthy. It boggles my mind - but here is the research. Make your own decision.

Also, testosterone is linearly related to IGF-1 levels. So I think the take home message is to cycle all of these compounds as keeping your IGF-1 levels elevated is potentially dangerous.
 
My research says that with the "new" IGF-1 reference test range "normal" is between 56-201 for Private MD-Labs for my age (55). I had IGF-1 done yesterday and got results about 20 min ago in a PDF.

I am at 2 IU of saizen or seronstim ED for 4 months. This is 3rd test for me. Baseline was 60, then 101 after 2 months now 98 at 4 months. So I am in low normal range but higher than when I started. You will probably say it should be higher but I have mitigating factors which explains why my liver may not produce IGF-1 optimally. Am about to up dose to 3 IU. I am just really, really careful about doing stuff like this. Hypochondriac.

What were the levels in this study? I get confused reading the data to be honest.

Also is there an optimum time to get IGF1 tested after GH administration? I know the GH serum protocol is 3 hours fasted not sure that applies to IGF1
 
There seems like there are many factors here that could be potentially overlooked. I would say it would be very difficult for a researcher to promote the idea that this shows direct correlation with the administration of exogenous IGF. It would be possible for them to cite this study if they were performing their own study but they would never suggest it as backing for practical medicinal methodology. There's too many factors here. You cannot use the study for anything more than its face value in scientific research. Its purely an observational study. You can't say that IGF caused cancer any more than you can say cancer caused the production of more IGF. We can make assumptions but they will always be just that unless a study is done with the administration of exogenous IGF.
 
There seems like there are many factors here that could be potentially overlooked. I would say it would be very difficult for a researcher to promote the idea that this shows direct correlation with the administration of exogenous IGF. It would be possible for them to cite this study if they were performing their own study but they would never suggest it as backing for practical medicinal methodology. There's too many factors here. You cannot use the study for anything more than its face value in scientific research. Its purely an observational study. You can't say that IGF caused cancer any more than you can say cancer caused the production of more IGF. We can make assumptions but they will always be just that unless a study is done with the administration of exogenous IGF.

Agreed, it is just an observational study, but, it is unfair to not pay attention to the results of these studies just because they are not randomized experiments. There are techniques now that are getting better at removing the various confounds that you are talking about.

This is just one study in a sea of many - the main conclusions seem to be that higher levels of IGF-1 are conducive to the growth of cancer. Obviously this does not imply that the use of exogenous IGF will cause cancer - it means that people should be extra careful about it. Having constant high levels of IGF over extended periods is probably harmful -thus, taking breaks seems warranted if one is so inclined to want large amounts of IGF in their body
 

Forum statistics

Total page views
558,049,085
Threads
135,757
Messages
2,768,649
Members
160,342
Latest member
bg15351
NapsGear
HGH Power Store email banner
your-raws
Prowrist straps store banner
infinity
FLASHING-BOTTOM-BANNER-210x131
raws
Savage Labs Store email
Syntherol Site Enhancing Oil Synthol
aqpharma
yourmuscleshop210x131
hulabs
ezgif-com-resize-2-1
MA Research Chem store banner
MA Supps Store Banner
volartek
Keytech banner
musclechem
Godbullraw-bottom-banner
Injection Instructions for beginners
Knight Labs store email banner
3
ashp131
YMS-210x131-V02
Back
Top