another interesting read on igf

[web]

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)

[blkbeard]

just curious if you have heard of this....I have a buddy of mine whose mother had cancer and is now recovering...but they have her on growth hormone...after reading the article above this sounds like the wrong thing to do...ever heard of this?

thanks

Great post!

[babybull34]

Thanks for posting, Web. I recently read an article praising long R3 IGF-1 and was seriously considering it instead of GH, but now I'm rethinking the decision. Thanks again for the info.

BB34

[Spook]

blkbeard, the only reason I could think that they would have her on GH would be if she's in a wasting condition or it was an odd form of cancer. I've never heard of GH causing cancer, but it can accelerate tumor growth from a cancer you may already have from all that I have seen.