My question is, If some steroids can potentially indirectly cause cancer by raising IGF-1 levels in your system, then what are the potential side effects of IGF-1 or Long R3 IGF-1 use??
Announcement
Collapse
Forum Upgrade
Although the forum has been upgraded, many features from the old software were incompatible with the new software. We will be working to get a few features upgraded to bring them back.
Recent blog posts may not be visible under Blog Posts, but all member blogs should be available under Member Blogs
There will be some getting used to the new format, so please bear with us.
Recent blog posts may not be visible under Blog Posts, but all member blogs should be available under Member Blogs
There will be some getting used to the new format, so please bear with us.
See more
See less
Cancer
Collapse
X
-
Josh,
That is one of the main concerns with HGH use. IGF-1 is a mitogen, which means it induces mitosis in cells which can cause cancer for a variety of reasons if something goes wrong. However, look at how many people have used/still use HGH and how many of them have gotten cancer from it. It's a very real chance, but a small one. And BTW, a manufacturer listed contraindication for HGH is if you already have cancer.
Comment
-
This is taken from 'Anabolics 2000' book by William LLewellyn:
CANCER
ALthough it is a popular belief that steroids can give you cancer, this is actually a very rare phenomenon. Since anabolic/androgenic steroids are synthetic version of a natural hormone that your body can metabolize quite easily, they usually place a very low level of stress on the organs. In fact, many steroidal compounds are safe to administer to individuals with a diagnosed liver condition, with little adverse effect. The only real exception to this is with the use of C17 alpha alkylated compounds, which due to their chemical alteration are somewhat liver toxic. In a small number of cases (primarily with Anadrol 50) this toxicity has lead to severe liver damage and subsequently cancer. But we are speaking of a statistically insignificant number in the face of millions of athletes who use steroids. There cases also tended to be very ill patients, not athletes, who were using extremely large dosages for prolonged periods of time. Steroid opponents will sometimes point out the additional possiblity of developing Wilm's Tumor from steroid abuse, which is a very serious form of kidney cancer. Such cases are so rare however, that no direct link between anabolic/androgenic steroid use and this disease has been conclusively established.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lwgy
i was under the impression that it will increase the rate of growth of cancer cells, but it would not create cancer cells.
Correlation of IGF-1 and Prostate Cancer
A good study has shown that a large number of elderly male patients taking HGH over a long time had no increase in prostate cancer.
That rumor got started when it was reported that elderly men with the lowest quintile of IGF- (lowest fifth of HGH) had less cancer than men with the highest 20% (highest fifth). There was no linear correlation of IGF-1 and prostate cancer in the study. They only reported less cancer in the most deficient of an elderly population.
What that report did not point out was that the lowest fifth were so deficient that all tissues of the body were inhibited in growth, healing and maintenance-- healthy as well as cancerous. It is quite a different thing to state that deficiency of essential hormones slows the growth of cancer (and everything else including a healthy body) and, on the other hand, trying to prove that hormones cause cancer. Life and health cannot progress without hormones. Cancer cannot progress without a living body to support its growth. It is quite predictable that if old people are dying from end stage deficiencies, they might have less cancer.
If all of the facts were reported, it is my opinion that the most senile and debilitated of the group would also have been those in the lowest 20% of IGF-1. But that data was not presented.
If HGH is only replaced to an average level present in the body for 30 years, from age 20 to age 50, and if it was safe during that 30 year period, and if it was essential to health during those 30 years, what is the harm in replacing it after age 50 when it becomes deficient? If it's dangerous, why does it not cause problems in the earlier 30 years when it is normally present in the same levels or higher from pituitary production? (Note: Excessively high doses of hormones can be harmful, I am referring here only to normal replacement doses).
E M CRANTON, MD
Eat,Learn,Train,Grow
IntensityXEat,Learn,Train,Grow,Shit,Shave and Shower
RIP Gearedup
Administartor/Owner@IntensityXtremeMuscle
Mod@AnabolicMonsterz
Mod@ livin
Mod@MassiveGains
Vet@Beyondmass
Vet@Massmonsterz
Vet@Anabolic-Support
Vet@BodybuildingCentral
Vet@ChemicalFitness
MOB Member@SculptedByIron
Comment
Comment