1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the All Things Male Forum! Please be sure you bookmark our new address. Also, please register and join the conversations. It's free!

Does IGF-1 extend or shorten lifespan?

Discussion in 'Male Health & HRT' started by mcs5309, Sep 14, 2012.

  1. mcs5309

    mcs5309 Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    948
    Likes Received:
    1
    Much has been posted on this forum on the benefits of GH vs. the drawbacks in terms of human lifespan.

    I recall much of the drawbacks to increasing one's GH had been debunked by members here as well as those well-respected in the HRT community. But lately, there has been more and more research supporting the negative effects of increasing one's IGF-1 (decreased lifespan, cancer, CVD, diabetes, etc.) via various exogenous applications (increased protein intake, excess calories, exogenous HGH, etc.). Additional research also supports protein restriction [http://scientificpsychic.com/blog/?p=418] or cycling, [as I posted on here: http://www.allthingsmale.com/forum/showthread.php?21146-Protein-cycling-anyone], as increased protein intake boosts IGF-1 production [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673798/].

    In the following recent article and documentary produced by the BBC, animals have been genetically engineered so their body produces very low levels of a IGF-1, high levels of which seem to lead to accelerated aging and age-related diseases, while low levels are protective. As levels of the IGF-1 drop, a number of repair genes appear to get switched on according to ongoing research by Professor Valter Longo of the University of Southern California who is also director of the USC Longevity Institute.

    article:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19112549

    full documentary:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfna7nV7WaM

    But is the case against higher IGF-1 levels valid, as both inhibition of IGF-1 and lowered protein intake run counter to everything we learned from the HRT/anti-aging community [http://www.neogenantiaging.com/igf1-is-it-better-than-hgh/?] In fact, I believe A4M is still of the opinion that optimum IGF-1 blood levels are between 350 to 400 and that treatment is clinically indicated when IGF-1 blood levels drop below 200.

    This 2008 study supports the exact opposite of these latest rounds of research:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080527084252.htm

    Elderly men with higher activity of the hormone IGF-1--or insulin-growth factor 1--appear to have greater life expectancy and reduced cardiovascular risk, according to a new study.

    IGF-1 is a hormone similar in molecular structure to insulin. It is released from the liver and plays an important role in childhood growth and continues to have anabolic effects in adults. ...

    Subjects with the lowest IGF-1 function had a significantly higher mortality rate than subjects with the highest IGF-1 bioactivity. These results were especially significant in individuals who have a high risk to die from cardiovascular complications.


    And how does any of the argument against maintaining adequate levels of IGF-1 and protein consumption figure in with the strength, bodybuilding, and other fitness-minded crowd? We all know that too little protein - or worse - a strict vegan diet - will promote disease, decrease metabolism from too little lean body mass, etc.

    Based on this paradigm, anything we can do to keep GH and IGF-1 levels up will help us look and feel younger - but will such extend or decrease lifespan?

    It therefore goes without saying that there's a lot of contradictory science going on here.

    First off, it has been show that fasting, particularly intermittent fasting (IF), actually raises endogenous HGH. We know that dietary restriction (DR) reduces IGF-1, however, IF may not in cases in which calories are unrestricted:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC156352/

    Given the above contention that IGF-1 inhibition via protein restriction (or protein cycling), or otherwise, can extend human lifespan, I would think most would side toward having a fantastic quality of life (which for me means plenty of lean mass, plenty of physical activity, and plenty of meat on my plate) than live a few extra, IGF-1 and protein-restricted years. Ideally, all of us want both the quality and quantity of life. But, is it possible?

    IGF-1 is not recognized as the ONLY true marker for GH activity. In fact, the following post suggests there is the possibility of a completely inverse relationship between increased GH levels and IGF-1 levels by using HGH secretagogues as opposed to exogenous HGH which, as we know from firsthand experience and otherwise, raises IGF-1:
    http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Rejuvenation/message/5453

    Scientific abstracts showing GH and IGF-1 being completely independent of one another:
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(94)90181-3/abstract
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2245967
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10941424

    And this paper touting the benefits of a HGH secretagogue TD cream Trans-D-Tropin suggest the same:
    https://www.transd.com/truth_about_gh.php

    Perhaps the trick is to err on the side of caution and use secretagogue peptides that will simultaneously raise GH levels while not affecting IGF-1? Yet, it is unclear as to exactly which peptides will raise IGF-1. Anyone with some updated research on this, please post.

    At the end of the day, does it all come down to: It is better to live one day as a lion, than a lifetime as a mouse - OR - is there a legitimate method to obtain the positive benefits associated with increasing one's GH without the apparent age-reducing effects we are seeing more research substantiate with respect to increased IGF-1?

    Let's hear it from the experts!
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2012
  2. CFIDS

    CFIDS New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    2
    I need to know this too...I am 37 and mine has dropped to 122!!!! I also have low-T. IN 2010 my IGF-1 was 213. I am concerned and did some research a few weeks back and like you, everything I saw said it was beneficial, and on one anti-aging forum, I saw people taking supplements and eating a diet to INTENTIONALLY LOWER thier IGF-1 levels...That is counter to everything I believed up until a few weeks ago. I mean really sick people ususally have low levels of IGF-1/HGH....so which is it? Do I need to get some shots or not? Now, FYI, in my brief research, I did see that HGH shots had a short-term benefit and quality of life factor, but long term they will shorten your telomeres on DNA and lead to shorter lifespan...I'd like to see the responses to this thread :lurk5:
     
  3. rfish1966

    rfish1966 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am trying to find the interview but I read this 90 year olds log about being on GH for something like ten years and his igf-1 being the upper 600 range and had regular cancer screenings and had never had any issues.
     
  4. letstalk

    letstalk New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think its very dangerous to take individual accounts into our weighing process when trying to determine something like this matter at hand. There are always going to be individuals in the top and bottom percentile, and unfortunately, they get the most press usually!

    If there were some large scale studies looking at populations' IGF1 levels then we could start there, IMO.
     
  5. rfish1966

    rfish1966 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    1
    I fully agree, it was however an interesting read.
     
  6. xks201

    xks201 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    3
    igf 1 is a natural hormone. sure when u give rats huge amounts of it they will get problems. this idea that igf 1 is bad is based on those rat studies. yes you can develop diabetes from too much GH.
     
  7. cpeil2

    cpeil2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    4,293
    Likes Received:
    3
    The fact that it is a natural hormone doesn't mean that too much of it won't cause disease. Try telling somebody with Graves disease that they shouldn't be sick because thyroid hormone is a natural hormone and therefore can't cause disease.
     
  8. WhatTheF

    WhatTheF New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    2
    Am curious about the reference to optimum IGF-1 being 350-400. The LabCorp range shows 94-252 on my labs. Is this using a different index?
     
  9. letstalk

    letstalk New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    1
    Most likely, labs are by no means standardized... they all use different ranges and rarely are they the same.

    I believe quest's range goes up to mid 300s or 400.
     
  10. 52188

    52188 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't get my IGF-1 above 175 and that's with GHRP/GHRH. My baseline was 92.
     
  11. xks201

    xks201 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    3
    thats why i said too much can cause diabetes. too much could probably cause anything. replacing something that is deficient does not cause anything but improvement. i'm not speaking of people with autoimmune diseases here or with neurosyphilis.
     
  12. mcs5309

    mcs5309 Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    948
    Likes Received:
    1
    According to the Longo studies as cited in the BBC documentary, you will live well past the average life expectancy, assuming you maintain this level. According to the anti-aging HRT community, you won't. A hot debate to say the least.
     
  13. mcs5309

    mcs5309 Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    948
    Likes Received:
    1
    I read this statement from here: http://www.hgh-hormone.info/buyhgh.html

    It appears that A4M's statement is based on the opinion of Savine, et al:

    "In an article published in Hormone Research in 2000, Savine et al concluded that life without growth hormone is poor both in quantity and quality. The emphasis here should be placed on quality as maintaining a good quality of life is the goal. Savine found that GH peaks at puberty and starts decreasing at 21. At the age of 60, most adults have the same 24-hour secretion rate indistinguishable from those hypopituitary patients with organic lesions in the pituitary gland. Thus, a normal 60-year-old is the same as a sick 25-year-old in terms of GH levels. Savine also concluded that if an IGF-1 level of 300 is mean normal for a 20 to 30-year-old, almost everybody over the age of 40 has an IGF-1 deficit."

    "GH migrates to the liver to produce insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) – 60% of the effects that GH has on the body are exerted via IGF-1. For example, GH’s anabolic effect upon muscle, bone, and cartilage, and its lipolytic effect on fat, are all mediated by IGF-1. GH and IGF-1 can both pass through the blood-brain barrier."

    "Many people think that GH is good, whereas IGF-1 is bad, and that we want to increase GH without increasing IGF-1. This is not the case. More than half of the action of GH is exerted through IGF-1, and the general consensus is that both are necessary."

    (These are excerpts from an excellent paper written by one of the world's most prominent and well-respected Anti-Aging and Regenerative Medicine docs, Ron Rothenberg, MD.) Here is the full document:
    View attachment aamt_vol8_ch29_rothenberg.pdf

    As said best by Dr. Dach, "Dr. Rothenberg's goal is not to lengthen lifespan; rather it is to improve the QUALITY of our lifespan." This goes along with my "It is better to live one day as a lion, than a lifetime as a mouse" statement.

    Here's a link to LEF's forum discussing this issue, citing a few anti-aging doc's optimal level opinions :
    http://forum.lef.org/default.aspx?f=36&m=46426
    Dr. Claude Dalle:
    female: 200-300 ng/dL, male: 200-380 ng/dL

    Philip L Miller and LEF (p 116) indicate also target and optimal ranges (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Extensio...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204993658&sr=1-1)
    114-492 ng/mL (normal), 200-300 ng/mL (optimal)

    Here's another pro-IGF-1 link:
    http://www.drragno.com/id23.html
    "An ideal IGF-1 level is around 350"

    "And to clear the record: I still recommend a range of IGF-1 for optimal replacement of 300-500. The absolute minimum effective level is probably ~225 in males and ~275 in females. With levels over 500, you dramatically increase side-effects, and don't really gain any more advantage. I still recommend daily (or twice daily) injections. The 3 times/week regimen gives you more of a sensation because the levels fluctuate so much. In reality, you have peak IGF-1's above 500, and troughs below 250. There is substantial negative feedback with this regimen and higher levels of somatostatin.

    Live and learn, long and well!

    James R Hughes, MD"


    The average serum IGF-1 level consensus amongst the above pro-GH-IGF-1 age management community seems to be at 300-350 for anti-aging purposes which again runs directly counter to the latest research I posted in my thread.

    We must keep in mind that all the pro-IGF-1 research was years BEFORE these latest studies.

    Here's a missile against Longo's research (again, from Rothenberg's paper):
    "What about CRP? Which is the strongest predictor of cardiovascular events that we have. CRP is very high in GH deficiency. With GHRT, CRP decreases and visceral and subcutaneous fat decreases. As we know, visceral fat produces IL-6, which in turn produces CRP."

    It's all highly contradictory.

    I'd love to hear Dr. John, Dr. Gordon, and Dr. Rothenberg's opinion of Prof. Longo's research and the BBC news documetary.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
  14. whitegato777

    whitegato777 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    2
    I would like to know the answer to this too. In my research aging is a period when DNA doesn't repair properly. And from what I've read igf is a major factor in DNA repair.
    As for hgh causing diabetes, I would like to see the reports. I've never read hgh will cause diabetes. I've read too much rhgh will. Because high levels of rhgh will increase the regulatory hormone somatostatin which will decrease insulin causing a diabetic situation.
     
  15. Wise Guy

    Wise Guy Talking Monkey Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,753
    Likes Received:
    5
    The latter is likely age adjusted. The former is the correct range.
     
  16. Wise Guy

    Wise Guy Talking Monkey Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,753
    Likes Received:
    5
    How much are you using?

    It is also possible that if your pituitary is damaged, coaxing it to increase GHRH output by decreasing GHIH via GHRP is a moot point.
     
  17. WhatTheF

    WhatTheF New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hadn't considered that...am still getting accustomed to potentially being in an "age adjusted" demographic :)

    Thanks for the info.
     
  18. 52188

    52188 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    0
    My pituitary is damaged, but the sermorelin/GHRP blend triggered a massive amount of GH release so I don't know how to read it.

    From a single dose of a blend of 100 mcg Sermorelin, 250 mcg GHRP-2 and 50 mcg GHRP-6, my serum GH was over 10 and my IGF was 175. I use a somanostatin inhibitor huperzine A to help release more GH also.
     
  19. Desert Eagle

    Desert Eagle Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    2
    Not so fast. Define damaged please. Is shut off and non responsive damaged or just tumors, lesions, and irregular shaped/flat?
    While I will not argue coaxing it as you described may be moot. There are other evolving "fixes" and "augmentations" that are close to the surface of no longer being hidden that no one is even close to discussing in this tread.

    The real questions is in my mind, precursors or replacement and not just for HGH/IGF-1, but for T as well.

    I have given you 1/3 to 50% of the equation in getting the excessive ethanol checked off that inhibits the P450 to modulate cholesterol into preg. Two other game changers when combined will force current HRT to have to reorganize, rethink or fade away away and be replaced.
     
  20. Desert Eagle

    Desert Eagle Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    2
    Define damaged please. MRI scan says ___________. Other testing says _____________ what?
     

Share This Page