Are you suggesting that our evolutionary biology has adapted to cause GH and IGF-1 levels to drop with age to prolong our lives by avoiding cancer? Is this your personal theory or is this cited somewhere?
Oh, brother, there's comprehensive scholarship on this. PubMed query, "IGF-1 longevity." This paper, for example: Barbieri M, Bonafè M, Franceschi C, Paolisso G. Insulin/IGF-I-signaling pathway: an evolutionarily conserved mechanism of longevity from yeast to humans. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Nov;285(5):E1064-71. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.00296.2003. PMID: 14534077.
I think it's far more likely than not that yes, there is an evolutionarily conversed mechanism of longevity in mammals modulated by IGF-I signaling, characterized by reduced serum IGF-I to promote lifespan as we age.
Cross-sectional/observational evidence abounds, that large sized animals including humans are more susceptible to early mortality (because of more cells basically), therefore greater risks of mutagenesis and such. Tall people die significantly earlier than short, pygmy populations have lifespans many years beyond the norm, etc.
Have you never heard of the use of use of Metformin and caloric restriction to promote longevity, based on IGF-I & mTOR being viewed as anathema to longevity? I mean, 99/100 papers that I read view activation of the IGF-I cascade/mTOR activity as positively disasterous.
You're usually Johnny On The Spot with references but this sounds more like opinion and speculation than science. And the free and bound forms of IGF-1, wouldn't these binding agents also apply to rhIGF-1 and LR3 as well?
Yeah, basically anything that increases IGF-I activity is anathema to longevity.
I agree with the premise of your argument to a degree and I'm not suggesting the massive assault of supra-physiological doses of what really are essentially bio-identical hormones is a good health step forward but certainly you must agree that these bio-identical forms of human hormones and peptides are not equivalently as offensive and aggressive as their analogous counterparts in replacement dosages for which the analogs have no "replacement" dosages bc there is no endogenous level to replace. My counterpoint is only that engineered forms of these molecules cannot be (or have not yet been shown to be) superior to their natural and/or manufactured bio-identical counterparts. In fact isn't this the very reason for isolating these exact chemicals in the first place?
I'm just going to disregard the financial point as a misstep and just move past it. Here, you seem to be suggesting the opposite of your other claim in that recombinant human insulin (e.g. Humulin R) can "fairly be described as" bio-identical only that the pharmacodynamics of an injection vs endogenous insulin release are not analogous. You're making my counterpoint argument for me here, yes? At any rate, again agreed. This is precisely why I use R preps over their shorter and longer-acting analogous counterparts. Not because those preps have no merit but rather that R preps seem to have a more natural glucose clearing response curve.
I think that "bio-identical" hormones are a basic fiction, and that's OK, because chemical modifications to T, GH, IGF-I, & insulin, all provide enhancements for various applications (e.g., Rimobolan is a superior drug for treatment resistant cancer than testosterone).
Now this one really leaves me scratching my head. While testosterone cypionate, as one example, is a prodrug to testosterone, once esterase has done it's work, the remaining testosterone molecule is of course biologically identical even though we might consider it a metabolite of test cyp at that point. Again, the only difference is in the pharmacodynamics of an injection vs endogenous release of the hormone. Or are you saying that replacement levels are more deleterious bc of some action on aromatase? Clean this up for me, please. I'm not sure what is implied here.
I mean, if your view is that eventually a prodrug to testosterone yields testosterone, I of course agree. But I think there's a clear distinction between in vivo testosterone & testosterone enanthate. The first is bioidentical, the second is a delivery mechanism for T. I love T, almost always use it -
almost - I prefer orals only without exogenous T sometimes (since exogenous T is so suppressive, and the 17AAs are virtually nonsuppressive and just additive to endogenous T). Huge myth to say otherwise. Major perils of exogenous test include suppression of gonadotropins and HPG axis suppression, aromatization to estradiol, 5AR in prostate, etc. You probably know all this, but the point is that there weren't two decades of industrial-scale international efforts by pharmaceutical corporations to develop testosterone alternatives for naught - it's because many derivatives
are better at non-TRT applications than testosterone is.
I'm not ruffled at all. I love these discussions. I'm just asking you to expand on this a bit. I can't believe I missed this yesterday. This all seems counter to previous assertions you've made which were quite convincing indeed. But here, this seems more argumentative than revelatory. (Which normally your work certainly is.)
Thought-provoking post though as usual, my friend. Edit: Additionally, I want to add that I hope you enter the research field and are published. And I mean that as sincerely and iterally as I can. Your research, assertions, even your vocabulary are among the best I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot. Even superior to many of the published articles we cite.