not sure if you guys read this, but im interested in your rebuttals. I know t-mag folks are biased but they have some interesting accusations/points.
sorry, i know, long read:
IGF-1: Worst Bodybuilding Drug Ever?
Q: What ever happened to IGF-1? It was talked about in 'roid books in
the early '90s but you don't hear much about it now, except for a few
sleazy supplement companies who are using the name.
A: IGF-1 can allow for hypertrophy of muscle. Will it do such a thing
when administered to humans? Yes. However, the gains seen really aren’t
spectacular. More often than not, they don’t even come close to gains
seen using androgens.
For the most part, people should realize that IGF-1 is primarily responsible
for GH’s anabolic effects in skeletal muscle as well as cell proliferation,
leading to enlarged internal organs and increasing the risk for cancer
dramatically. Oh, and this most certainly includes Long R3 IGF-I as I
know some people will try to argue that it's much safer.
Well, in order to give you the total picture, I’m going to go over some
basic molecular biology as well as list the direct evidence we have concerning
the side effects of IGF-1 and yes, that includes Long R3 IGF-I.
First, people should understand that in the human cell cycle, growth
requires growth factors in general. Seems simple enough. The next thing
people need to understand is that for a normal cell, death is something
that'll inevitably occur via loss of telomerase or apoptosis (programmed
cell death). Again, I can’t overemphasize enough that the default pathway
in humans is death, not growth. (Reassuring, isn't it?)
Now, when you hear of cancer, malignant cancer, people tend to think
of uncontrolled cell division. Essentially though, these transformed
cancerous cells are immortalized. Now, many changes are required for
this to occur (i.e. increased telomerase, increased bcl-2, increased
myc and decreased p53). In the development of cancer, we tend to think
of carcingogens consisting of both initiators and promoters. For instance,
some initiators are UV radiation and tobacco smoke, usually causing
DNA damage or mutation, whereas promoters tend to stimulate cell division.
A few examples are phorbol esters, hormones (e.g. estrogens) and yes,
growth factors.
Now, keep in mind both events, initiation and promotion, are required
for the development of malignant cells. As a side note, viral infection
can also lead to the two events, but I digress. Anyhow, normally a cell
serves its purpose and then dies via apoptosis. However, malignant cells
don’t undergo apoptosis. They are, as I said before, immortal. The normal
triggers to apoptosis are DNA damage, loss of cell-matrix contact, loss
of cell to cell contact, and last but most certainly not least, lack
of growth factors.
When you introduce growth factors, you’re providing the catalyst for
cancer formation, so to speak. Let’s say, for instance, you get many
sunburns during your lifetime. Now, let’s say that one cell has its DNA
damaged or altered. This, in and of itself, isn’t too much of a concern
as this is only one part of the equation, the iniation. The second part
is the promoter (including growth factors).
Well, let’s imagine we introduce growth factors to the cell which has
damaged or mutated DNA and it then begins to divide at a more and more
rapid rate until it won’t stop. Voila, you have a tumor, which is now
capable of even faster growth as well as being invasive (able to invade
surrounding tissues) and metastatic (able to cause growth in completely
unrelated and distant tissues) in regard to other tissues.
In other words, you now have a malignant tumor, which we commonly refer
to as cancer. The fact is, cancer stems from just one cell, just one
cell, which begins to divide uncontrollably. People often talk about
GH and the side effects thereof, but what most don’t realize is that
many of those side effects aren't necessarily mediated by growth hormone
but by IGF-1.
Many people may go their whole lives with some DNA damage (or mutation
rather) and never have cancer, but with the addition of growth factors,
you’re asking for trouble. Even more specifically, you can increase
the risk of developing rare forms of cancer, like sarcomas, which are
tumors commonly found in connective tissues (i.e. muscle, bone, cartilage,
etc.)
Okay, now on to the more cosmetic side effects. With Long R3 IGF-I, it
was shown to stimulate growth of the gastrointestinal tract. IGF-1 actually
had no effect on body weight and wet tissue weight of the small and large
intestine, whereas Long R3 IGF-I resulted in a 20% increase in the weight
of the small and large intestine. This is what's causing a "GH gut" although
using Long R3 IGF-I is much, much worse than using GH.
Something else to keep in mind is that Long R3 IGF-I was shown to be
even more potent than IGF-1 in inhibiting apoptosis and thus its potential
for causing cancer is many times greater.
Another idea is that IGF-1 may also keep telomerase activity high, which
as we noted previously is a contributing factor for the loss of regulation
in terms of cell division. In other words, it again can substantially
increase the risk for developing cancer. Long R3 IGF-I was shown to increase
telomerase activity in human prostate cancer cells, whereas IGF-1 had
no effect.
So, when I tell you to stay away from IGF-1, I’m actually referring to
Long R3 IGF-I as it’s what's most commonly circulated and used. Although
both aren't something a person should use, Long R3 IGF-1 is probably
the worst choice you can make.
So, unless you’re an IFBB pro who consistently places in the top ten
at popular contests, you should forget about using IGF-1, or specifically
the analogue of IGF-1 called Long R3 IGF-I. It’s really not worth the
risk. This, out of all the compounds that bodybuilders may use, is probably
the worst in terms of potential side effects.
If you want a true distended belly and increased risk of cancer, be my
guest. (47-52)
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by whiteykauai
