For those considering IGF-1, some food for thought

**Monte Brogan** · 08-20-2005, 08:23 PM

We likely won't know the long-term effects of high-dosage GH/IGF-1 usage for years to come.

Also, note that bodybuilders are specifically mentioned.

Cancer and insulin -like growth factor-I (IGF-1 )

Editorial / British Medical Journal BMJ 2000;321:847-848 7oct00

A potential mechanism linking the environment with cancer risk The milk from cows treated with rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone , a genetically engineered hormone by Monsanto that is injected into cows to make them produce more milk), has higher levels of IGF-1. Contrary to the claims of Monsanto, it is not destroyed in the human stomach.

Insulin-like growth factor-I acts as an important mediator between growth hormone and growth throughout fetal and childhood development. Its effects and those of the other insulin-like growth factors are modulated by at least six different binding proteins. The role of insulin-like growth factor-I in promoting cancer has been investigated for many years, but recently the quality and quantity of evidence has increased.1 In particular, a number of prospective studies using stored blood collected up to 14 years before the onset of disease have shown associations between insulin-like growth factor-I and prostate cancer, premenopausal breast cancer, and colon cancer

The risk of cancer is higher among people with raised concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I, and it is lower among those with high concentrations of insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 (the main binding protein). The associations are similar when people whose blood samples were taken soon before diagnosis are excluded from analyses, suggesting that the observed relations are not due to the release of the growth factor by preclinical cancers.2-4 The effects are sizeable and stronger than the effects seen in relation to most previously reported risk factors.1 Weaker evidence from case-control studies suggests that the ratio of insulin-like growth factor-I to insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 may also be related to the risk of childhood leukaemia and lung cancer. 5 6

The increasing direct epidemiological evidence that relates insulin-like growth factor-I to the risk of cancer is consistent with more circumstantial evidence. Acromegaly, in which high concentrations of growth hormone stimulate production of high concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I, has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer and breast cancer in some studies and less consistently with prostate, thyroid, and haematological malignancies.7 In many studies anthropometric markers of the activity of insulin-like growth factor-I, such as height and leg length, are associated with cancer incidence, particularly with the cancers for which risk increases with rising concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I.8 While adult height is not strongly associated with concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I in cross sectional studies, it may be a marker for this growth factor during childhood growth,9 and this may be the period during which it acts to increase the risk of cancer occurring in later life.3 Additionally, animal studies have shown that high overall intake of energy in early postnatal life is associated with an increased cancer risk, and this association has recently been found in humans.10 In animals, calorie restriction reduces the risk of cancer primarily by reducing the circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I.11

Support for the link between cancer and this growth factor comes from an understanding of the potential mechanisms. Concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I could be a surrogate for the activity of sex steroid hormones, which in turn influence the risk of cancer. However, associations between insulin-like growth factor-I and cancers dependent on sex hormones are stronger than those between directly measured concentrations of sex hormones and these cancers. Insulin-like growth factor-I may increase cell turnover and the susceptibility of cells to malignant transformation both directly and by modulating the effects of sex steroids . The fact that the risk associated with increased concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I is greater in people whose DNA is more susceptible to damage induced by mutagens supports this suggestion.6 Alternatively, insulin-like growth factor-I might increase the risk of cancer through its anti-apoptotic activity.1 In this case it prevents the programmed death of cells that have been transformed thus interrupting an important process which retards the development of cancer. Experiments using animal and cell cultures have shown that the anti-apoptotic activity of insulin-like growth factor-I is counterbalanced by the activity of insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3, which may have a direct and independent stimulatory action on apoptosis.

Given the increasing evidence of the risk of cancer, caution should be exercised in the exogenous use of either insulin-like growth factor-I or substances that increase concentrations of it. Despite supposedly being restricted to use only in licensed applications, growth hormone is easily available as an anti-ageing treatment and is surprisingly widely used by athletes and body builders, who also use insulin-like growth factor-I. Those who use these products are unlikely to be aware of their potentially harmful effects.

The final accounting on the balance sheet of growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor-I, and chronic disease is uncertain. The increasing evidence of a risk of cancer may be counterbalanced by a protective effect on the risk of cardiovascular disease. Growth hormone deficiency is associated with an adverse cardiovascular risk profile and increased risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease.12 Low concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I are also associated with cardiovascular morbidity in the elderly.13 Furthermore, the same studies that have shown a positive association between height and cancer risk suggest that greater height is associated with decreases in cardiovascular and all cause mortality.14

The predictive value of insulin-like growth factor-I may be useful in screening for cancer. For example, the ratio of insulin-like growth factor-I to prostate specific antigen may be a better predictor of the development of prostate cancer than the antigen alone.15 Growth hormone antagonists are being investigated as treatments for some cancers and chemotherapeutic agents are being developed to block the activity of insulin-like growth factor-I or to promote the activity of insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3; these agents may offer additional ways of stimulating apoptosis in malignantly transformed cells. Lastly, better knowledge of the factors that influence overall concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I may help in devising strategies to prevent cancer at a population level.

Much recent attention has focused on the human genome project and its potential for unravelling the causes of cancer. The genes that have been identified as causing cancer so far account for only a small proportion of major cancers. The rapid and sizeable changes in the incidence of cancer that have been seen during times of economic development coupled with the findings from twin studies - which compare the concordance of cancer risk in identical and non-identical twins to determine the relative influence of genetic and environmental factors - both point to the importance of non-genomic factors.16 The new epidemiological findings about insulin-like growth factor-I provide one potential mechanism through which an array of previously identified environmental risk factors may act.

George Davey Smith, professor, clinical epidemiology.
David Gunnell, senior lecturer, epidemiology and public health.

Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR

Jeff Holly, professor, clinical science.

Department of Surgery, University of Bristol

**Captain Fantastic** · 08-20-2005, 08:32 PM

Nice first poster . Why not come in with a bang.. ifg-1,....cancer........you're scaring me man

**catlovesfood** · 08-21-2005, 02:08 AM

so are you saying....IGF-1 gives you cancer? Its possible I suppose but so does everything else in the world..

**stocky121** · 08-21-2005, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by catlovesfood

so are you saying....IGF-1 gives you cancer? Its possible I suppose but so does everything else in the world..

yes everything can give cancer i woulden't worry about it

i think smoking would be much worse

**Captain Fantastic** · 08-21-2005, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by stocky121

yes everything can give cancer i woulden't worry about it

i think smoking would be much worse

what about the other mentioned side? The part about it staying in your body. I was still getting early AM sleepless hypo stomach feelings 4 weeks PC.

It evoked thoughts that my stomach will never be the same?.........

Beginning to think the way to go is GH and AAS and let the IGF-1 be that that naturally occurs while using GH. Haven't started GH yet, but I like the AAS PCT qualities of LGR3. Understand GH helps with PCT, so could be good to go.

**stocky121** · 08-21-2005, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Fantastic

what about the other mentioned side? The part about it staying in your body. I was still getting early AM sleepless hypo stomach feelings 4 weeks PC.

It evoked thoughts that my stomach will never be the same?.........

Beginning to think the way to go is GH and AAS and let the IGF-1 be that that naturally occurs while using GH. Haven't started GH yet, but I like the AAS PCT qualities of LGR3. Understand GH helps with PCT, so could be good to go.

there are side affect's to most thing's you take you just need to work out if the result's match up with the side's if not don't take it

**Seattle Junk** · 08-21-2005, 11:49 AM

This all theory with no data. I understand using GH and IGF-1 for pure health betterment is in it's research stages. But you must remember HGH has been used for over 20 years, mainly in children. If there is imperical data supporting cancer delvolpment in the children treated back then, it would show up today in the (now) adults. According to this vague and theorized info above, that is the group that is at most risk. Where are the numerous people with cancer that were treated with GH 20 years ago? I believe growth factors can speed up genetic flaws which may mutate into cancer that would of, most liklely, shown up later in life. But then again, that's theory since there is not enough data. That may be the reason for Lyle Alzado's death? Considering he started using GRORM (cadaever extracted GH), it's not suprising. Human engineered GH is void of containamation (opposed to GRORM) and it is now administerd in much smaller doses than it was to children back in the 80's, early 90's (8-12ius/day?).

I believe the US government fuels a lot of this propgranda for many reasons. They do not want to see people live longer due to financial reasons (social security system, medicare, etc). That's my opinion.

Oh yeah, they said the same thing about AAS back in the 90's...Thereputic amounts of AAS has proven that it makes people healthier. Ask the families of the wasting AIDS patients that died in the 80's, early 90's. I bet they wish doctors prescribed AAS for AIDS back then? These people are now healthier than most NON infected people due to proper training, nutrition and AAS therapy. Case and point, Magic Johnson.

**juict** · 08-21-2005, 12:51 PM

great point seattle..it does deem to be true that a lot of these articles are simply just junk... a lot of it may be there just to freak you out, and yes IGF is still in research so we dont really know the outcomes of what may happen. the thing is i dont think i would completely say the article is BS, it is a valid arguement and it is well worth the read. we really honestly CANT say that it is wrong just because we dont want to.

**Monte Brogan** · 08-21-2005, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Fantastic

Nice first poster . Why not come in with a bang.. ifg-1,....cancer........you're scaring me man

I'm not saying the article is gospel - I'm just pointing out that there is considerable research linking IGF-1 to cancer. Now, does that mean supplementing with IGF will cause cancer? Who knows. It may, or it may not. But before we put anything in our systems, I think its wise to do some research so we can make informed decisions.

Also, "ban him" is an interesting response. I left another board b/c the posters were unintelligent, impulsive juveniles. I was hoping not to find the same thing here. Hopefully the the mods on this board welcome all intelligent opinions - even ones that go against the grain.

**Monte Brogan** · 08-21-2005, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Seattle Junk

This all theory with no data. I understand using GH and IGF-1 for pure health betterment is in it's research stages. But you must remember HGH has been used for over 20 years, mainly in children. If there is imperical data supporting cancer delvolpment in the children treated back then, it would show up today in the (now) adults. According to this vague and theorized info above, that is the group that is at most risk. Where are the numerous people with cancer that were treated with GH 20 years ago? I believe growth factors can speed up genetic flaws which may mutate into cancer that would of, most liklely, shown up later in life. But then again, that's theory since there is not enough data. That may be the reason for Lyle Alzado's death? Considering he started using GRORM (cadaever extracted GH), it's not suprising. Human engineered GH is void of containamation (opposed to GRORM) and it is now administerd in much smaller doses than it was to children back in the 80's, early 90's (8-12ius/day?).

I believe the US government fuels a lot of this propgranda for many reasons. They do not want to see people live longer due to financial reasons (social security system, medicare, etc). That's my opinion.

Oh yeah, they said the same thing about AAS back in the 90's...Thereputic amounts of AAS has proven that it makes people healthier. Ask the families of the wasting AIDS patients that died in the 80's, early 90's. I bet they wish doctors prescribed AAS for AIDS back then? These people are now healthier than most NON infected people due to proper training, nutrition and AAS therapy. Case and point, Magic Johnson.

Seattle, thanks for the lucid reply. You make some nice points.

**Monte Brogan** · 08-21-2005, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by juict

great point seattle..it does deem to be true that a lot of these articles are simply just junk... a lot of it may be there just to freak you out, and yes IGF is still in research so we dont really know the outcomes of what may happen. the thing is i dont think i would completely say the article is BS, it is a valid arguement and it is well worth the read. we really honestly CANT say that it is wrong just because we dont want to.

Good point, bro.

I personally am considering using IGF, so I'm trying to learn as much as possible before taking the plunge. That's how I came across the study I posted.

**Seattle Junk** · 08-21-2005, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by juict

great point seattle..it does deem to be true that a lot of these articles are simply just junk... a lot of it may be there just to freak you out, and yes IGF is still in research so we dont really know the outcomes of what may happen. the thing is i dont think i would completely say the article is BS, it is a valid arguement and it is well worth the read. we really honestly CANT say that it is wrong just because we dont want to.

The study is good and the info we want to see. You want to know all possible factors. I'm not a risky person but I am adventerous in the eye of caution. We have the best data and real life information within our online communties on this very subject, HGH & IGF-1. These medical journals have to speculate what may happen with limited data gathered from animal studies, usually rats. Any data that they get from the bodybuilding community can't be used, only observerd. The data can't be validated so they can't use it in their studies. We are way ahead of the curve when it comes to better health via HRT and soon gene therapy. We're lab rats? Sure... A bunch of healthy rats that look much younger than their age says on their driver's licenses.

**Seattle Junk** · 08-21-2005, 03:06 PM

A potential mechanism linking the environment with cancer risk The milk from cows treated with rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone, a genetically engineered hormone by Monsanto that is injected into cows to make them produce more milk), has higher levels of IGF-1. Contrary to the claims of Monsanto, it is not destroyed in the human stomach.

I have a problem with the opening statement. Ok, they claim the higher IGF-1 levels produced by the BGH in the cow is active in consumer milk. Unless the IGF-1 comes out 17-AA somehow, this is bunk. Why don't they expand and explain how the IGF-1 is making it out of the stomach and becoming active in the bloodstream? Where is it being absorbed to enter the bloodstrem? Do the stomach acids turn off for a few minutes so this Safeway milk can do it's magic with it's fortified IGF-1? They say "Contrary to the claims of Monsanto, it is not destroyed in the human stomach. " That's it! Don't insult my intelligence, give me supporting data or even a theory.

First of all, milk is homoginized among other treatments. Let's say the IGF-1 is still active while sitting in your local grocery store, it's refrigerated. You get it home and drink it. Well, naturally occuring IGF-1 from the liver (cow or human) has a very short half life (30 mins?) and I question the amount that can be in the milk. Once the milk hits your stomach, your acids would neutralize it. Why can't you just swallow liquid test e and get effects? It's a specific engineered chemical that has a 7 day half life. Stomach acids kill it and you just drank some cotton seed oil. You may get heart burn?

That's a crock of BS and they want to convince less educated people to believe it. That's my opinion.

**Seattle Junk** · 08-21-2005, 03:37 PM

THE MYSTERY IN YOUR MILK
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/exhibit%20r.htm

Jeez, I had to do my own research to answer my questions. I'm still not convinced and it still doesn't add up> http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/bgh.shtml

Large Increases in the Hormone IGF-1

rBGH-dairy induces a 70% to 1000% increase in the levels of the hormone, IGF-1. IGF-1 in dairy foods is not destroyed by digestion because it is protected by casein and by dairy's buffering effect. At least some of this IGF-1 is absorbed into the body. IGF-1 stimulates the proliferation of cancer cells. Two recent studies showed that increased levels of IGF-1 in humans predict increased rates in breast cancer and prostate cancer.

**Benches505** · 08-21-2005, 03:45 PM

We don't know enough about the long term effects of IGF and I will leave it at that. Promoting cancercells is one reason why I am still debating taking IGF/GH

**Seattle Junk** · 08-21-2005, 03:51 PM

It's a scare tactic according to me. Anything can happen in the future including cancer no matter what you do. But there has been 20 years of data with high amount (compared to today) GH adminstration in children back in the 80's, world wide. Where are these higher than normal cancer patients in this group? Where are the bodies? Hospitals keep files on everyone.

**Monte Brogan** · 08-21-2005, 10:58 PM

I think that, at this point, the best we can do is proceed with caution. Those who plan to use should do so moderately (i.e., avoid high doses). And those with a family history of cancer may want to avoid HGH/IGF completely.

As Seattle correctly mentioned, the AMA was dead wrong on AAS and we know that. Decades after they made their ominous predictions about AAS usage, its clear now they were trying to scare the daylights out of us. But super-high doses of HGH and IGF are relatively new and time will tell what, if any, long-term side effects they induce.

Be safe guys.

**oswaldosalcedo** · 08-25-2005, 08:01 PM

grilled meat produce cancer too and the sun too.
is just predisposition that can cause cancer.

simply it wants to provoke.
at anabolex forum, almost nobody paid attention (except me).

**Captain Fantastic** · 08-25-2005, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Monte Brogan

I'm not saying the article is gospel - I'm just pointing out that there is considerable research linking IGF-1 to cancer. Now, does that mean supplementing with IGF will cause cancer? Who knows. It may, or it may not. But before we put anything in our systems, I think its wise to do some research so we can make informed decisions.

Also, "ban him" is an interesting response. I left another board b/c the posters were unintelligent, impulsive juveniles. I was hoping not to find the same thing here. Hopefully the the mods on this board welcome all intelligent opinions - even ones that go against the grain.

First of all, I agree that IGF is bad stuff. I think it permanently stays in your intestines. you read it right there it stays in cow intestines. so.....let me see here.......it stays in cow intestines,......so ........IT PROBABLY STAYS IN HUMAN INTESTINES TOO!!!!!!! I really think Im going to limit future use. if you read what i said about it, i still felt it in my stomach 4 WEEKS AFTER CYCLE.

Now, the part about ban him...lighten up, it was a joke. I'm on board! article looks legit.And by the way if IGF ACCELRATES CANCER, THEN IT PROMOTES CANCER, IF IT PROMOTES CANCER IT CAUSES CANCER. YOU SEE MANY, MANY OF US ARE GOING TO DIE OF CANCER. IF YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE, AND YOU DONT KNOW UNTIL YOU GET IT, ...YOU ARE GOING TO DIE SOONER!!!!! THEREFORE IT CAUSES CANCER, I SAID.....

**Seattle Junk** · 08-25-2005, 09:54 PM

Go smoke some cigs and drink some fortified wine.

**Maetenloch** · 08-26-2005, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Fantastic

First of all, I agree that IGF is bad stuff. I think it permanently stays in your intestines. you read it right there it stays in cow intestines. so.....let me see here.......it stays in cow intestines,......so ........IT PROBABLY STAYS IN HUMAN INTESTINES TOO!!!!!!! I really think Im going to limit future use. if you read what i said about it, i still felt it in my stomach 4 WEEKS AFTER CYCLE.

Now, the part about ban him...lighten up, it was a joke. I'm on board! article looks legit.And by the way if IGF ACCELRATES CANCER, THEN IT PROMOTES CANCER, IF IT PROMOTES CANCER IT CAUSES CANCER. YOU SEE MANY, MANY OF US ARE GOING TO DIE OF CANCER. IF YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE, AND YOU DONT KNOW UNTIL YOU GET IT, ...YOU ARE GOING TO DIE SOONER!!!!! THEREFORE IT CAUSES CANCER, I SAID.....

There are a couple of fallacies in your post -

1. "not broken down by the human stomach" does not mean igf stays in your intestines. It implies that it's either absorbed into the blood stream and then eventually broken down like regular igf, or it's passed out in the next bowel movement.

2. "IF IT PROMOTES CANCER IT CAUSES CANCER" is not true in general. It's known that the growth of certain breast cancers is promoted by estrogen, but there's no evidence that estrogen is a direct cause of the cancer itself.

I think the best we can say at this point is that the long term effects of IGF and IGF-LR3 are still open questions. Certainly they can promote the growth of any existing cancers, but most non-competitors are not doing long cycles of IGF so I would the effect to be minimal. Long term use of HGH (with higher IGF levels) is another open question. My suspicion is that the results will be similar to those of long term estrogen replacement therapy i.e. mostly beneficial effects but risks to those who are prone to cancer. The risk/reward ratio will likely come down your genetics and lifestyle.

***JohnnyB*** · 08-26-2005, 11:30 AM

Guys, I didn't read very post so if I repeat something you'll know why.

Everything we use for muscle growth can accelerate cancer, but it doesn't cause cancer. This was the big scare when LR3 IGF-1 first came out. IGF-1 mutates the cancer cells, so if you already have cancer, it will accelerate it, but it won't cause cancer. AAS/HGH both elevate IGF-1, so again, if you have cancer it'll accelerate it's growth.

JohnnyB

**Seattle Junk** · 08-26-2005, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Guys, I didn't read very post so if I repeat something you'll know why.

Everything we use for muscle growth can accelerate cancer, but it doesn't cause cancer. This was the big scare when LR3 IGF-1 first came out. IGF-1 mutates the cancer cells, so if you already have cancer, it will accelerate it, but it won't cause cancer. AAS/HGH both elevate IGF-1, so again, if you have cancer it'll accelerate it's growth.

JohnnyB

Will GH or IGF-1 make my unit larger? That's why I'm here.....