# Insulin, GH, IGF-1 and cancer



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

I get a number of alerts for new journal articles sent to me. I got this one a while back and thought you lads might be interested.

Know your drugs and what you are taking, the good, the bad and the ugly.

If you have a history of cancer in your family, GH, IGF-1 and insulin may not be sensible drugs for you to use.

Study protocol: Insulin and its role in cancer

BMC Endocrine Disorders 2007,

7:10 doi:10.1186/1472-6823-7-10

K Harish ([email protected])

M Dharmalingam ([email protected])

M Himanshu ([email protected])

ISSN 1472-6823

Article type Study protocol

Submission date 16 July 2007

Acceptance date 22 October 2007

Publication date 22 October 2007

Article URL http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-

Abstract

Background: Studies have shown that metabolic syndrome and its consequent biochemical derangements in the various phases of diabetes may contribute to carcinogenesis. A part of this carcinogenic effect could be attributed to hyperinsulinism. High levels of insulin decrease the production of IGF-1 binding proteins and hence increase levels of free IGF-1.

*It is well established that bioactivity of free insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1) increases tumor turnover rate.*

The objective is to investigate the role of insulin resistance/sensitivity in carcinogenesis by studying the relation between insulin resistance/sensitivity and IGF-1 levels in cancer

patients. We postulate that hyperinsulinaemia which prevails during initial phases of insulin resistance (condition prior to overt diabetes) increases bioactivity of free IGF-1, which may contribute to process of carcinogenesis.

Methods / Design: Based on our pilot study results and power analysis of the same, we have designed a two group case-control study. 800 proven untreated cancer patients (solid epithelial cell tumors) under age of 50 shall be recruited with 200

healthy subjects serving as controls. Insulin resistance/sensitivity and free IGF-1 levels shall be determined in all subjects. Association between the two parameters shall be tested using suitable statistical methods.

Discussion: Well controlled studies in humans are essential to study the link between insulin resistance, hyperinsulinaemia, IGF-1 and carcinogenesis. This study could provide insights to the role of insulin, insulin resistance, IGF-1 in carcinogenesis although a precise role and the extent of influence cannot be determined. In future, cancer prevention and treatment strategies could revolve around insulin and insulin resistance.

Background

The association of diabetes mellitus and cancer has been reported more than 100 years ago [1]. Population studies have shown increased evidence of this association.

Diabetes has been recognized as a risk factor for development of

breast, endometrial, colorectal and pancreatic carcinomas [2]. Breast, endometrial, colorectal and pancreatic carcinomas are best studied with regard to their association with diabetes/insulin resistance.

Population studies have shown that the effects of diabetes mellitus on colorectal cancer may be mediated throughmechanisms ranging from increased colonic transit time to hyperinsulinaemia. In relation to the latter, at least in the early phase of development, type 2 diabetes

mellitus is associated with increased circulating insulin concentrations [3, 4].

A large cohort study concluded that diabetes is associated with a modestly increased risk for endometrial cancer among women [5]. Future research, particularly prospective studies with biological samples, could be very helpful in answering questions aimed

at clarifying these mechanisms [5].

Data suggest that type 2 diabetes might be associated with up to 10-20% excess risk for breast cancer and that it could also

have detrimental effects on the natural history, diagnosis, and treatment of breast cancer [1, 6].

*In the past few years both laboratory investigations and population studies have provided some circumstantial evidence that insulin growth factor biochemical derangements may contribute to carcinogenesis.*

*
Several studies implicate hyperinsulinism, a condition that prevails prior to the onset of diabetes (part of metabolic syndrome) as candidate mediator in carcinogenesis* [10].

Studies have revealed that high levels of circulating insulin decreases levels of insulin like growth factor binding protein 1 and 3 (IGFBP 1,3). Thus free IGF-1 levels increase incirculation [11, 12].

Another aspect of IGF physiology is the IGF signaling. In this signaling process, IGF-1 receptor is a predominant factor and is crucial for tumor transformation and survival of malignant cell. It has comparatively less role in normal cell growth [13].

Thus role of IGF-1 in promoting carcinogenesis and its prognosis is well established.

Over the recent years, IGF-1 physiology has been widely studied.

The IGF system, comprises of insulin-like IGF-I, IGF-II, and IGFBPs. IGF-1 as a growth factor plays a dominant role over IGF-2 and hence is widely studied.

Until recently, growth hormone was the only known stimulant of IGF-1 production. Different lines of evidence suggest that the IGF/IGFBP system may be regulated by factors other than growth hormones. States of nutritional deprivation, such as starvation and protein caloric under-nutrition and type 1 diabetes mellitus, in animal models have long been known to influence the production of IGFs [14-16].

Various studies have shown that resistance to insulin action, as found in diabetic patients, has been associated with an increase IGFBP-3 protease activity, there by reducing IGFBP-3 levels [17]. Also, Insulin increases IGF-I bioavailability through IGFBP-1 suppression [14, 18, 19]. Thus there is ample evidence to suggest that insulin resistant states increase free IGF-1 levels.

Medical literature suggests that well controlled biochemical and genetic studies are required to establish the link between insulin, IGF-1, diabetes and cancer. We propose to investigate the role of hyperinsulinemia in carcinogenesis.

The primary objective of the study is to investigate the role of insulin resistance or sensitivity in carcinogenesis.

This is done by studying the relation between insulin resistance/sensitivity and IGF-1 levels in cancer patients. The secondary objective is

to study the above mentioned association with organ specific cancers if possible.

Carcinogenesis is multi-factorial.

The metabolic and genetic derangements that take place during carcinogenesis may be induced by carcinogens and inherited genetic

factors.

The role of either could be variable in a given case. We hypothesize that

people with insulin resistance are at *risk of developing cancer due to high levels of circulating IGF-1.*

Such a risk would increase if other such factors are prevalent /acquired. A person with high levels of IGF-1 may be predisposed to cancer and his/her risk of developing cancer would increase with the presence of other such factors. Cancer being a non-communicable disease, with multiple risk factors, modifiable risk factors are very few.

Controlling hyperinsulinaemia would modify one major risk factor. IGF-1 levels in body change with age. In addition, riskIGF-1 has high bioactivity on epithelial cells. Thus their role in carcinomas is of significance rather than other types of malignancies. Hence we limit our study to

carcinomas of breast, GIT, liver, prostate, uterus, cervix and ovaries.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

this is all well and good Tat but there are a lot of words like "might" and "maybe" and "may" plus along with this statement



> although a precise role and the extent of influence cannot be determined


 i think the studies are assuming a lot and not proving anything to be honest.

the other flaw to this is that IGF-1 is a lot different to IGF-1LR3 which does not produce the Binding Proteins that IGF-1 does so see no relevance to injected IGF-1LR3.

As GH lowers insulin not increase it then i don't see the relevance with GH as your title of the thread assumes,

Also the studies and conclusions makes connections between different types of diabetes which is of a concern but in my opinion not to the general bodybuilder who uses these products sensibly as they are not diabetic....

I will agree that their is a small risk of increasing the risk of cancer by using these products if you have family history but as of yet the link is poor at best.


----------



## stow (Jun 5, 2007)

Cancer can almost never be attributed to one single cause or factor. Its very difficult to say why and when a cell or group of cells begin to mutate to a point that the body cannot control it. So quite often a link is the closest the research papers can say and remain credible.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> this is all well and good Tat but there are a lot of words like "*might" and "maybe" and "may"* plus along with this statement i think the studies are assuming a lot and not proving anything to be honest.
> 
> the other flaw to this is that IGF-1 is a lot different to IGF-1LR3 which does not produce the Binding Proteins that IGF-1 does so see no relevance to injected IGF-1LR3.
> 
> ...


That is the language of science, as any good scientist knows there are so many variables that are uncontrolled in an experiment that you use terms like that.

Remember it took about 30-40 years of scientific research to prove a causative link between cigarette smoking, lung cancer and heart disease.

Even with smoking, some people smoke like chimneys and suffer minor ill health, some people have a dreadful smokers hack at 30 (I work with one young woman like this).

This is not meant to be scare tactics, but it is meant for people to embark on their use of PEDs fully informed of all the potential sides and risks, which may be greater for some and non-existant for others.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

stow said:


> Cancer can almost never be attributed to one single cause or factor. Its very difficult to say why and when a cell or group of cells begin to mutate to a point that the body cannot control it. So quite often a link is the closest the research papers can say and remain credible.


That is not entirely true, but I know what your are getting at.

There are some genetic disorders like retinoblastoma that the patient WILL develop cancer.

There are a few other genetic disorders I can't remember right now.

As well, exposure to high levels of radiation and some chemicals WILL cause cancer.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tatyana said:


> This is not meant to be scare tactics, but it is meant for people to embark on their use of PEDs fully informed of all the potential sides and risks, which may be greater for some and non-existant for others.


this is true but most if not all of this study is talking about peptides you would not use, no bodybuilder would use IGF-1 they would use IGF-1LR3 the information concerning insulin is talking about diabetics not healthy individuals and there is no section of this that includes GH really.

my point is that you have named the thread as if it involves all of these commonly used drugs which it does not really....mind you my grey matter might be lacking on this subject.....


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> this is true but most if not all of this study is talking about peptides you would not use, no bodybuilder would use IGF-1 they would use IGF-1LR3 the information concerning insulin is talking about diabetics not healthy individuals and there is no section of this that includes GH really.
> 
> my point is that you have named the thread as if it involves all of these commonly used drugs which it does not really....mind you my grey matter might be lacking on this subject.....


Science learns a lot about how the 'normal' body functions by studying the pathologies.

I haven't come across any studies about these substances in athletes (related to long-term sides), however, the same issues MAY  apply to BBers, elevating the levels of insulin, GH and IGF-1 through exogenous sources (meaning you take it rather than being naturally triggered).

GH is going to trigger IGF-1 release, which is how it is related.

You know me Paul, I am always more slanted towards caution.


----------



## TGF 3 (Feb 27, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> this is all well and good Tat but there are a lot of words like "might" and "maybe" and "may" plus along with this statement i think the studies are assuming a lot and not proving anything to be honest.
> 
> *the other flaw to this is that IGF-1 is a lot different to IGF-1LR3 which does not produce the Binding Proteins that IGF-1 does so see no relevance to injected IGF-1LR3.*
> 
> ...


IGF-1 LR3 is just a synthetic analog of IGF-1 that has been modified to give it better binding affinity (make it stronger), how you can say say it alot different than regular IGF-1 is just plain wrong, and to say that LR3 does not produce binding proteins like IGF-1 is also wrong, the IGF binding proteins (IGFBP1, 2 and 3) are completely separate family of proteins than the IGF family. They are coded for by their own set of genes and are not "produced" by IGF-1, their role is to bind free IGF-1 (and IGF-2) thus making it inactive. Now I understand that you want to stand up for IGF-1 LR3 use, and I dont mind you doing so, but don't try and knock a published peer reviewed scientific paper by making statements that are scientifically incorrect.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

i am all for caution and i dont need to stand up for IGF-1LR3 as no proven studies have been issued. as for IGF-1 being different than IGF-1LR3 i am not wrong as IGF-1LR3 has a higher potency which is due to the decreased binding of Long R3 IGF-1 to all known IGF binding proteins. These binding proteins normally inhibit the biological actions of IGF's.

as for published peer reveiwed papers where on this paper does it state IGF-1LR3? it doesn't and this was my point, if you would point me in the direction of a paper that has shown a direct link between IGF-1LR3 and cancer risk i would appreciate it.

As for standing up for IGF-1LR3 use i have no need to do so as everyone makes their own choices but this article/study proves nothing it merly makes assumptions that can be altered to point towards the cause of cancer by using Slin/GH or IGF-1LR3 although it does not mention IGF-1LR3 which is chemically different to IGF-1 from both the liver and the muscle.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

*Accession number & update*

17349798 Medline 20070401.

*Title*

Doping with growth hormone/IGF-1, *anabolic* *steroids* or erythropoietin: is there a cancer risk?

*Source*

Pharmacological research : the official journal of the Italian Pharmacological Society, {Pharmacol-Res}, May 2007 (epub: 03 Feb 2007) , vol. 55, no. 5, p. 359-69, 119 refs, ISSN: 1043-6618.

*Author(s)*

Tentori-Lucio, Graziani-Grazia.

*Author affiliation*

Department of Neuroscience, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via Montpellier 1, 00133 Rome, Italy. [email protected].

*Abstract*

*Anabolic* *steroid* and peptide hormones or growth factors are utilized to increase the performance of athletes of professional or amateur sports.

Despite their well-documented adverse effects, the use of some of these agents has significantly grown and has been extended also to non-athletes with the aim to improve appearance or to counteract ageing.

Pre-clinical studies and epidemiological observations in patients with an excess of hormone production or in patients chronically treated with hormones/growth factors for various pathologies have warned about the potential risk of cancer development and progression which may be also associated to the use of certain doping agents.

*Anabolic* *steroids* have been described to provoke liver tumours; growth hormone or high levels of its mediator insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) have been associated with colon, breast, and prostate cancers.

*Actually, IGF-1 promotes cell cycle progression and inhibits apoptosis either by triggering other growth factors or by interacting with pathways which have an established role in carcinogenesis and cancer promotion.*

More recently, the finding that erythropoietin (Epo) may promote angiogenesis and inhibit apoptosis or modulate chemo- or radiosensitivity in cancer cells expressing the Epo receptor, raised the concern that the use of recombinant Epo to increase tissue oxygenation might favour tumour survival and aggressiveness.

Cancer risk associated to doping might be higher than that of patients using hormones/growth factors as replacement therapy, since enormous doses are taken by the athletes often for a long period of time.

Moreover, these substances are often used in combination with other licit or illicit drugs and this renders almost unpredictable all the possible adverse effects including cancer. Anyway, athletes should be made aware that long-term treatment with doping agents might increase the risk of developing cancer.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Biochem J. 1994 August 1; 301(Pt 3): 769-775.

PMCID: PMC1137054

Effects of insulin and insulin-like growth factors on protein and energy metabolism in tumour-bearing rats.

F M Tomas, C S Chandler, P Coyle, C S Bourgeois, J L Burgoyne, and A M Rofe Cooperative Research Centre for Tissue Growth and Repair, Adelaide, Australia.

Abstract

The effects of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-I), and a more potent variant LR3-IGF-I, which binds poorly to IGF-binding proteins, were investigated in rats bearing a mammary adenocarcinoma. The effect of insulin, either alone or in combination with LR3-IGF-I, was also investigated.

Peptides were infused via osmotic minipumps for 6-7 days after tumour size reached 5% of body weight. Infusion of IGFs alone at either 200 or 500 microgram/day significantly decreased food intakes as well as circulating levels of insulin and glucose, and consequently failed to promote muscle protein accretion in the host.

*Tumour growth was increased by the IGFs, especially by LR3-IGF-I, even though these peptides did not promote growth of the adenocarcinoma in cell culture.*

Infusion of LR3-IGF-I, and to a lesser extent IGF-I, led to decreased rates of muscle protein synthesis and increased muscle protein breakdown, but each of these measures was closely related to the final tumour burden (r2 = 0.454 and 0.810 respectively; P < 0.01) and possibly resulted from a decrease in substrate supply to the host tissues.

Insulin infusion (100 micrograms/day) increased food consumption by more than 50% and significantly decreased tumour growth. Insulin and LR3-IGF-I had a synergistic effect on host weight, which increased by 19.1 +/- 1.9, -1.1 +/- 4.7 and 37.9 +/- 1.5 g for insulin, LR3-IGF-I and combined treatments respectively. Carcass protein was increased by more than 10% with insulin treatment, due to increased rates of synthesis and decreased rates of muscle protein breakdown, but LR3-IGF-I had no positive effect on carcass protein accretion, either alone or in combination with insulin. Similarly, the amount of carcass fat was increased almost 2-fold by insulin treatment, whereas it was decreased by 30% by LR3-IGF-I.

These changes may have arisen either from direct hormone effects on metabolism or from the indirect effects of food intake, or both. Our results suggest that IGF administration may exacerbate an insulin insufficiency associated with the tumour-bearing state and further decrease metabolic substrate supply to the host. This can be overcome by co-infusion of insulin.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

*Copyright © 1998 Academic Press. All rights reserved. **
Regular Article 
Biological Characterization of Human Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma Cells in Primary Culture: The Insulin-like Growth Factor System***1* 

*
*

*
**C. A. Conover**a**, **1**, L. C. Hartmann**b**, S. Bradley**a**, P. Stalboerger**c**, G. G. Klee**d**, K. R. Kalli**a** and R. B. Jenkins**c*

*
*

a Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Oncology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota, 55905

b Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota, 55905

d Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Oncology, Division of Mayo Medical Laboratories, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota, 55905

c Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Oncology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Laboratory Genetics, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota, 55905

Received 21 July 1997;

revised 1 October 1997.

Available online 17 April 2002.

*Abstract*

Little is known about the factors regulating epithelial ovarian cancer cell growth. This is due, in large part, to the difficulty in obtaining and culturing human ovarian cells for relevantin vitrostudies. We recently developed a method for culturing epithelial carcinoma cells derived from fresh, untreated epithelial ovarian cancer specimens.

The cell populations are free of fibroblasts and reflect the primary tumor as determined by chromosomal analysis. In this study we report on the cells' growth in serum-free medium and their secretion of CA-125, a glycoprotein marker for ovarian cancer.

Furthermore we characterize the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system in these primary ovarian carcinoma cell cultures. The cells secrete IGF peptides and IGF-binding proteins, possess specific type I IGF receptors, and respond to exogenous IGFs. T*he culture system reported here provides the basis for further study and manipulation of the IGF system as well as other regulators of epithelial ovarian cancer. *

Greater understanding of the cellular and molecular mediators of primary human ovarian cancer cell growth may translate into relevant clinical interventions.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

*http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/1/362*



*Experimental Therapeutics, Molecular Targets, and Chemical Biology*

*In vitro** and **In vivo** Antitumor Effects of the Dual Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I/Insulin Receptor Inhibitor, BMS-554417 *

*Paul Haluska1, Joan M. Carboni4, David A. Loegering2, Francis Y. Lee4, Mark Wittman5, Mark G. Saulnier5, David B. Frennesson5, Kimberly R. Kalli3, Cheryl A. Conover3, Ricardo M. Attar4, Scott H. Kaufmann2, Marco Gottardis4 and Charles Erlichman1 *

Divisions of 1 Medical Oncology, 2 Developmental Oncology Research, and 3 Endocrinology and Metabolism, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota; 4 Oncology Drug Discovery, Pharmaceutical Research Institute, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Princeton, New Jersey; and 5 Discovery Chemistry, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Wallingford, Connecticut

*Requests for reprints:* Charles Erlichman, Division of Medical Oncology, Guggenheim 1311, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905. Phone: 507-284-3514; Fax: 507-266-5146; E-mail: [email protected] .

*The insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF-IR) and insulin receptor are either overactivated and/or overexpressed in a wide range of tumor types and contribute to tumorigenicity, proliferation, metastasis, and drug resistance*.

Here, we show that BMS-554417, a novel small molecule developed as an inhibitor of IGF-IR, inhibits IGF-IR and insulin receptor kinase activity and proliferation in vitro, and reduces tumor xenograft size in vivo. In a series of carcinoma cell lines, the IC50 for proliferation ranged from 120 nmol/L (Colo205) to >8.5 µmol/L (OV202).

The addition of stimulatory ligands was unnecessary for the antiproliferative effect in MCF-7 and OV202 cells. BMS-554417 treatment inhibited IGF-IR and insulin receptor signaling through extracellular signal-related kinase as well as the phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt pathway, as evidenced by decreased Akt phosphorylation at Ser473.

At doses that inhibited proliferation, the compound also caused a G0-G1 arrest and prevented nuclear accumulation of cyclin D1 in response to LR3 IGF-I. In Jurkat T-cell leukemia cells, this agent triggered apoptotic cell death via the mitochondrial pathway. BMS-554417 was orally bioavailable and significantly inhibited the growth of IGF1R-Sal tumor xenografts in vivo.

BMS-554417 is a member of a novel class of IGF-IR/insulin receptor inhibitors that have potential clinical applications because of their antiproliferative and proapoptotic activity in vitro and in vivo. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(1): 362-71)


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Long term use is not of any use in the promotion of muscle growth in mice.

*Long-term insulin-like growth factor-I expression in skeletal muscles attenuates the enhanced in vitro proliferation ability of the resident satellite cells in transgenic mice *

*
*

*
*

*
**Manu V. Chakravarthy**a**, Marta L. Fiorotto**b**, Robert J. Schwartz**c** and Frank W. Booth**, *







*, **a**, **d*

*
*

a Department of Integrative Biology, University of Texas Medical School, 6431 Fannin Street, Houston, TX 77030, USA

b Department of Pediatrics, United States Department of Agriculture/Children's Nutrition Research Center, 1100 Bates St., Houston, TX 77030, USA

c Department of Cell Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, USA

d Departments of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences and Physiology, University of Missouri-Columbia and the Dalton Cardiovascular Institute, 1600 E. Rollins St., Columbia, MO 65211, USA

Received 16 February 2001;

revised 2 April 2001;

accepted 4 April 2001.

Available online 25 June 2001.



*Abstract*

Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) overexpression for 1-month in mouse skeletal muscle increases satellite cell proliferation potential. However, it is unknown whether this beneficial enhancement by IGF-I expression would persist over a longer-term duration in aged mice.

*This is an important issue to address if a prolonged course of IGF-I is to be used clinically in muscle-wasting conditions where satellite cells may become limiting.* Using the IGF-I transgenic (IGF-I Tg) mouse that selectively expresses the IGF-I transgene in striated muscles, we found that 18-months of continuous IGF-I overexpression led to a loss in the enhanced in vitro proliferative capacity of satellite cells from Tg skeletal muscles.

Also 18-month-old IGF-I Tg satellite cells lost the enhanced BrdU incorporation, greater pRb and Akt phosphorylations, and decreased p27Kip1 levels initially observed in cells from 1-month-old IGF-I Tg mice. The levels of those biochemical markers reverted to similar values seen in the 18-months WT littermates.

*These findings, therefore, suggest that there is no further beneficial effect on enhancing satellite cell proliferation ability with persistent long-term expression of IGF-I in skeletal muscles of these transgenic mice.*

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T31-43BXP6P-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9e1dfce5a7dd05267281310758aafafa


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

*
*



*Cross-talk between IGF-I and TGF-β signaling pathways . *Cytokine & Growth Factor Reviews , Volume 17 , Issue 1 - 2 , Pages 59 - 74D . Danielpour , K . Song





*Abstract*

Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) has gained broad recognition as an important survival factor for epithelial cells in numerous tissues.

The IGF-I receptor signaling pathway is deregulated in the majority of carcinomas, and such deregulation has also been reported to be tightly associated with enhanced tumor progression and metastasis.

One of the key proteins that transduces IGF-I signals and is phospho-activated downstream of the IGF-I receptor, is the non-receptor serine/threonine kinase proto-oncogene protein kinase B (PKB, also known as Akt). This kinase serves as a major molecular node to control the function of many cell survival and death proteins through phosphorylation-mediated protein modification.

The end result of the activation of Akt is enhanced cell survival and proliferation, pre-requisites for malignant transformation.

Recent studies show that IGF-I signals cross-talk at multiple levels with various components of the TGF-β signaling pathway, which depending on context may function either as tumor suppressor or as tumor promoter.

Thus, a better understanding of how the IGF-I and TGF-β signaling pathways are mutually interconnected is likely to unveil novel targets for the therapeutic intervention of many cancers.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

*Effect of blocking IGF-Ⅰ receptor on growth of human hepatocellular carcinoma cells*

*You-Cheng;Zhang;Xiao-Peng;Wang;Ling-Yi;Zhang;Ai-Lin;Song;Zhi-Min;Kou;Xu-Sheng;Li*

*Abstract:*

AIM： To study the expression level and localization of insulin-like growth factor -Ⅰ receptor （IGF-IR） in HepG2 cells and Chang liver cells, and to observe the effect of anti-IGF-IR monoclonal antibody （αIR3） on the growth of HepG2 cells.

METHODS： The expression of IGF-IR in HepG2 cells and Chang liver cells was detected by immunohistochemistry. The influences of αIR3 on proliferation and apoptosis were examined by the 3- （4, 5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl）-2, 5- diphenyltetrazolium bromide （MTT） assay and electron microscopy, respectively. Flow cytometry （FCM） was applied for the analysis of cell cycle and apoptosis was observed under electron microscope.

RESULTS： IGF-IR was located in the membranes of both HepG2 and Chang liver cell lines, and the expression level of IGF-IR was higher in HepG2 cells than in Chang liver cells. Treated with 0.1 μg/mL αIR3 for 48 h in vitro, the cell growth index （GI） of HepG2 cells was significantly higher than that of control （103.41% ys 100%, P 〈 0.01）. However, the αIR3 for 24 h at final concentration of 4.0 μg/mL made the GI of HepG2 cells lower than that of control （93.37% vs 100%, P 〈 0.01）. Compared with control, treated with αIR3 for 48 h at final concentrations ranging from 2.0 μg/mL to 4.0 μg/mL markedly reduced the GIs of HepG2 cells （97.63%, 97.16%, 95.13%, 92.53% vs 100%, P 〈 0.05 or P 〈 0.01）, treated with αIR3 for 72 h at final concentrations ranging from 0.2 μg/mL to 4.0 μg/mL decreased the GIs of HepG2 cells obviously （95%, 91.63%, 90.77%, 89.84%, 88.51% vs 100%, P 〈 0.01）, and treated with αIR3 for 96 h at final concentrations ranging from 0.5 μg/mL to 4.0 μg/mL made GIs of HepG2 cells lower significantly （88.86%, 83.97%, 79.81%, 77.24%, 70.51% vs 100%, P 〈 0.05or P 〈 0.01）. Moreover, treated with αIR3 from 24 h to 96 h at final concentrations ranging from 0.2 μg/mL to 4.0 μg/mL reduced the GI of HepG2 cells from 97.63% to 70.51% in a dose- and time-dependent manner. Also, αIR3 treatment for 72 h at final concentration from 0.5 μg/mL to 2.0 μg/mL increased the proportion of G0/G1 phase cells（61.73%, 67.1%, 83.7%,76.87% vs 44.47%, P 〈 0.01） and significantly decreased that of S phase cells（28.63%, 25.13%, 15.63%, 23.13% vs 53.17%, P 〈 0.01）, in contrast to the proportion of G2/M phase cells. The apoptotic rates of HepG2 cells were increased more than that of control （7.83%, 16.13%, 21.1%, 37.73% vs 4.13%, P 〈 0.01）.

* CONCLUSION： The malignant cell phenotype of human hepatocarcinoma cell is related to overexpression of IGF- IR. The blockage of IGF-IR with αIR3 may contribute to the inhibition of proliferation and induction of apoptosis in HepG2 cells*.[著者文摘]


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

*http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/1/245*



*Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention** 17, 245-248, January 1, 2008. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0686*

*
© 2008 **American Association for Cancer Research*



*Insulin-Like Growth Factor Axis and Oncogenic Human Papillomavirus Natural History*

*Tiffany G. Harris1, Robert D. Burk1, Herbert Yu2, Howard Minkoff3, L. Stewart Massad4, D. Heather Watts5, Ye Zhong1, Stephen Gange6, Robert C. Kaplan1, Kathryn Anastos1, Alexandra M. Levine7, Michael Moxley8, Xiaonan Xue1, Melissa Fazzari1, Joel M. Palefsky9 and Howard D. Strickler1*

1 Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; 2 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut; 3 Maimonides Medical Center and State University of New York Downstate, Brooklyn, New York; 4 Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, Illinois; 5 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland; 6 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; 7 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; 8 University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia; and 9 University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California

*Requests for reprints:* Howard D. Strickler, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Belfer 1308, Bronx, NY 10461. Phone: 718-430-4055. E-mail: [email protected]

High serum levels of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) are reported to be a risk factor for several common cancers, and recent cross-sectional data suggest a possible additional association of IGF-I with cervical neoplasia. To prospectively assess whether circulating IGF-I levels influence the natural history of oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV), the viral cause of cervical cancer, we conducted a pilot investigation of 137 women who underwent semiannual type-specific HPV DNA PCR testing and cervical cytology. Total IGF-I and IGF binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3), the most abundant IGFBP in circulation, were measured using baseline serum specimens. Having a high IGF-I/IGFBP-3 ratio was associated with increased persistence of oncogenic HPV infection [that is, a lower rate of clearance; adjusted hazard ratio (AHR), 0.14; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.04-0.57], whereas IGFBP-3 was inversely associated with both the incident detection of oncogenic HPV (AHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.93) and the incidence of oncogenic HPV-positive cervical neoplasia (that is, squamous intraepithelial lesions at risk of progression; AHR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.66). These prospective data provide initial evidence that the IGF axis may influence the natural history of oncogenic HPV. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(1):245-8)


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

look who has been trawling the net..... 

when i have time i will look at all these and see if they are relevant for bodybuilders dosing....

can i ask what dosing each study used?

I am the last one to say that their is no risk with any drug hell there is a chance of cancer from drinking red wine what i am saying is that it is not as clear cut as you take this or that peptide and you will get cancer...if this was the case more diabetics would have cancer and so would those like HIV pateints on GH regimes not to mention that fact that if the risk was that high the FDA would not of approved GH ir IGF-1 for use in children.

i am sure i could find a study showing lots of things can cause cancer in some way shape of form.....


----------



## pauly7582 (Jan 16, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> look who has been trawling the net.....
> 
> when i have time i will look at all these and see if they are relevant for bodybuilders dosing....
> 
> ...


Paul you raise some excellent points. From the excerpts above it's imposible to thoroughly assess the reliability of the study.

Credit to Tatyana for pasting them. It does give food for thought. But to fully appreciate the reliability of a single study takes hours if not days of analysis. What was the method used, what were the variables, in what context are the results discussed by the authors etc. This is not aimed at Tatanya but it makes me cringe when a few lines of a study are posted and the poster tries to use those few statements to prove their point. you HAVE to assess the whole study from method, to review, results and discussion.

to determine your disposition to develop cancer through GH, IGF use etc would have to be assessed in context of their whole lifestyle, diet, hereditary factors etc. It cant be said that 'if you have a family history of cancer, don't take IGF'. There are many malignancies that have no familial link and furthermore, the mechanisms by which the cancerous mutations take place in the first instance are brought about by countless different triggers in different cancers.

Do remember what disease we are talking about here. The single biggest risk factor for the development of cancer is age and age alone. We are exposed to countless carcinogens throughout life, many of which are unavoidable.

The true crux of research like this is to enable a better understanding of cancer in order to try and find better drugs and therapies. That is the best avenue of research at present.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

pauly7582 said:


> Paul you raise some excellent points. From the excerpts above it's imposible to thoroughly assess the reliability of the study.
> 
> True, you do need full studies, however, this is just a google scholar search, and the point is that there are SO MANY studies that are saying the link between over-expression of IGF-1 is a well KNOWN factor in metastasis and carcinogenesis basically means that that is well established.
> 
> ...


..........................................................


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> look who has been trawling the net.....
> 
> I was on-call last night, it passes the time while I am waiting on samples, AE, doctors etc.
> 
> ...


This is the issue. You could find a news article that says everything causes cancer.

The media gets hold of one study where some interesting research shows a tenative link between substance X and cancer, heart disease, etc.

The media RUNS with it.

If you read the paper, it will almost always say, further study is required.

In the case of IGF-1, the molecule and it's receptor are known to be a part of the tumourgenesis pathway.

Similarily, when p53 mutates, you have cancer.

What causes them to lose control is a different issue.

The problem with the media is that it has confused people about scientific studies, so the population now distrust and questions ALL papers, even when it is established and rock solid research.


----------



## Five-O (May 21, 2006)

Studies and Statistics can prove/assume anything....either way...for or against IMO.

Whilst its good to be cautious...AND let ppl make and draw their own conclusions....

Can I just ask who or what was used as test subjects for some of those tests...Im sorry if I missed where it said it in the studies but its a heck of a lot of reading...


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Five-O said:


> Studies and Statistics can prove/assume anything....either way...for or against IMO.
> 
> Whilst its good to be cautious...AND let ppl make and draw their own conclusions....
> 
> Can I just ask who or what was used as test subjects for some of those tests...Im sorry if I missed where it said it in the studies but its a heck of a lot of reading...


There are numerous studies. Some of the studies were rats, some were related to people who have to take IGF-1 and GH.

If you want to prove or disprove something you have to do your own research.

Studies and statistics can prove things. It is just when things are multi-variable it becomes a bit more difficult.

When you start doing research and your own statistics you realise this.

There is a HUGE issue with scientists communicating science. Bloody hell, there are things that I have no idea about if I am reading out of my area, for example all the models for climate change.

I think some people are getting this a bit confused.

This is what is KNOWN

- IGF-1 levels are elevated in a number of cancers

- the IGF-1 receptor is activated in a lot of cancers

What triggers this growth factor pathway to become activated is another issue.

That you add in extra IGF-1 or GH (which would trigger IGF-1) could potentially be a trigger for carcinogenesis.

The majority of cancers are an error in a signalling pathway in the cell. Either the growth factor is over-produced, the receptor is sort of 'jammed' open so the cell is constantly being triggered to grow, or one of the cascade enzymes in the cytosol are also triggered 'on' all the time.

There are only a few 'set' signalling pathways in the body, things like C-AMP, G-AMP, all just have different receptors, sort of like a lock and key thing.

The receptor are also a limited number of types, for example, tyrosine kinase receptors, but the 'lock' portion varies.

There is quite a bit known about cancer and some cures have been developed.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> look who has been trawling the net.....
> 
> when i have time i will look at all these and see if they are relevant for bodybuilders dosing....
> 
> ...


This is the other thing Paul.

They treat children for childhood leukaemia, which does cure it at the time, but an outrageously high percentage of them develop cancer later on as the treatment itself is carcinogenic.

This is not unusual, a lot of radio- and chemotherapy is actually cancer inducing.

We have a very blunt tools right now for addressing a molecular issue.

I think that there is only a fab anti-body treatment for one of the T-cell lymphomas, but that is not because the cells are dividing out of control, but because they just don't 'switch off' after they have played their part in the immune response.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

this debate could go on for literally years but as has been pointed out you need to look at things about the study like as Paul has pointed out



> What was the method used, what were the variables, in what context are the results discussed by the authors etc


plus as you fully know Tat any study can be made to look for and against just to prove something.

as for doses not all studies use low doses those used on rats are per KG for the rat, if you remember Clenbuterol was first put up as an anabolic substance and then how it can effect the heart(although long term use i do believe it can) until you look at the doses used for the rats and when you convert them for human use it turned out that the dose was higher than 500mcg per day......cause and effect does not prove anything...

Tat please do not get me wrong i am with you on the cautious side of Peptide use hence why i will always advise a newbie not to use plus i have lowered my own use down from 120mcg ed to 60mcg 3 x week only using it twice a year for 6 weeks at a time.

their is a risk with everything and as you have pointed out it would seem that everyday something else comes to light that causes cancer....

red wine can cause cancer does that mean everyone will get cancer if they drink 2 bottles a week?

the Sun can cause cancer does that mean you have never sunbathed? if you have do you have cancer

these are obviously crazy things to assume but still very true for some like -

Tobacco has been proven beyond doubt to cause cancer yet everyone who smokes does not have or ever will get cancer? the answer is NO and this can be said for IGF-1/GH and Slin use....

as i have said before if the chance was that high why would the FDA approve GH and IGF-1(not LR3) for human use especially in children?

as i said above Tat this is not a dig at you i just think by pasting up a cpl of lines from a study you are trying to prove something that has not been proved....


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

here is a section from cancerhelp.org which is exactly my point...



> Apart from infectious diseases, most illnesses are 'multifactorial'. Cancer is no exception. *Multifactorial means that there are many factors involved. In other words, there is no single cause for any one type of cancer*.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

here you go just to prove the point that you can find cancer causeing substances any where...



> *Some Tea And Wine May Cause Cancer*
> 
> Evidence from around the world shows a correlation between tannin, an ingredient found in tea, and cancer of the esophagus. For those who have given up coffee to seek comfort in the harmlessness of tea, the news can be upsetting.
> 
> ...


so does this mean that if you drink Tea you will get cancer?

yet in the study below it shows how red wine prevents some cancers? which do you believe Tat?



> *Cancer Prevention and Red Wine *
> 
> Red wine is a rich source of biologically active phytochemicals, chemicals found in plants. Particular compounds called polyphenols found in red wine, such as catechins and resveratrol, are thought to have anti oxidant or anti cancer properties.
> 
> ...


again Tat not a dig nor am i dismissing the concerns but anything can be made to look like it can cause cancer even the air we breathe maybe next time you post a section from a study you include all the relevant factors.....


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

How about some stats on the number of bodybuilders, powerlifters and other athletes that have developed cancer.

I would bet that its less than the average per the whole population as apart from PEDs most top level athletes lead a healthy life. Since the majority of the 'normal' people dont use such compounds I fail to see how use of these peptides alone can trigger cancer.

And I dont argue for or against the use of such peptides. I do use them but I am aware of the risks and that the decision I make. This seems like more scaremongering than anything.

I would hypothesise that more cancers are attributed to such things as trans fats and carcingoens in food than PEDs which are naturally occuring hormones.

Elevation of a naturally occuring hormone will only enhance what risk is already there genetically it cant CAUSE such conditions unless there is a genetic predisposition for it. I dont need to provide an article to prove this as the anecdotal eveidence of 'my grandad smoked all his life and didnt get cancer' and so on highlights this.

However carcinogens that can mutate cells and cause elevation of free radicals and alter body chemistry are more likely to cause cancer in my opinion.

But then I studied business at Uni so probably dont know what the fcuk Im on about lol

Good read all the same, always glad to increase my knowledge


----------



## pauly7582 (Jan 16, 2007)

T, it wasnt my intention to 'get at you' as your answer seems to convey.

As I said, it does give good food for thought but in context of a bunch of bodybuilders/weightlifters could be argued isnt 100% relative.

But not knocking you, its interesting reading. Knowledge is power and all that.

I'm in the process of entering the field of cancer research, career wise, at this very point in my life actually so the topic is something I'm passionate about.

Cancer on a cellular level is infinitely complex. So complex in fact that I'll stop there lol


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

I am diagnosing and tracking people with cancer this week.

I had to learn WAY more about cancer than I cared to when at uni, and the odd thing is I get the fear people have about it, it is confronting.

I have a lot less fear about it now, in fact, there are some cancers you can have for 20 years, there are some that will kill you in 4 months. In general the cancer I am tracking are long lived, but not always.

I love the whole cell cycle control thing, I had thought about going into cancer research, but after being on crap training wages for years, there was NO WAY I was going to go back to crap PhD training wages.

It is still one of my major interests. As you can tell by this thread.

My intention is for the lads to know the risks.

Some people bloody CANE the gear and peptides thinking more is better.

That could be a fatal misconception.

I would also like some of you to consider that the science you read in the papers is interpreted by someone who is not necessarily a scientist and they want to grab the headlines.

There are biochemical differences between people that make some people more susceptible to certain diseases and cancer, and obviously there are environmental factors.

The idea is to minimise your risks, unless you really like the idea of living fast and dying young or suffering considerably at the end of your life.

I work in hospital, and in all honesty, seeing some of the things that I have seen, and just the sheer VOLUME of suffering has had me make a lot of lifestyle modifications to be healthier.

No one ever thinks it is going to happen to them.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

that is all good Tat and yet again i have to say we are not having a go as knowledge is power but non of these partial section show the guys any risks as it is not relevant to them as bodybuilders.

as i showed Tat you can get cancer from both Tea and Red wine do you avoid both of these?

yes i agree some do cane the gear and peptides but then some people smoke 40+ a day and don't get cancer.....

it is a multitude of factors that cause cancer not one thing,



Tatyana said:


> The idea is to minimise your risks, unless you really like the idea of living fast and dying young or suffering considerably at the end of your life.


 if you are going to highlight the risks to bodybuilders why not show the risks of getting cancer from eating red meat? as this is more proven and would probably effect many more bodybuilders than highlighting the effects of PED's...

Tat can i ask how would you interpret the studies you have posted against the natural rise of IGF-1/GH when involved in intense training?? do you think the cancer risks are still as viable??



Tatyana said:


> I would also like some of you to consider that the science you read in the papers is interpreted by someone who is not necessarily a scientist and they want to grab the headlines.


yes Tat this is true but not something you made a point of saying in your first post...


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

I think scientifically your whole argument is biased anyway Tat as you are incredibly anti gear.

So you haven't committed a fair argument. If this thread was peer reviewed then it would be discredited for that reason


----------



## TGF 3 (Feb 27, 2007)

the journals from which Tat has pulled these papers are some of the most prestigious/well respected (meaning it is incredibly difficult to have your research accepted/published in due to the intense scrutiny the controls/variables/methods and results of your work comes under before it is accepted for publishing) cancer journals in the world. The standard of the science behind papers published in these journals will be second to none.

Now although exogenous IGF-1 (LR3) may not on its own give you cancer, its function in the body is to activate the AKT signaling cascade (read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKT) which regulates cell survival, suppresses apoptosis (cell death) and promotes angiogenesis (growth of new blood vessels). Now these are two of the most fundamental problems a cell has to overcome before it becomes cancerous (ignore signals from other cells telling it to die and tumors cant survive without nutrients and oxygen supplied by blood vessels) all tumors will have acquired these abnormal abilities so high levels of administered IGF-1 could in theory 'Help out' precancerous cells in their quest to grow uncontrollably and reek havoc in the body.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

TGF 3 said:


> the journals from which Tat has pulled these papers are some of the most prestigious/well respected (meaning it is incredibly difficult to have your research accepted/published in due to the intense scrutiny the controls/variables/methods and results of your work comes under before it is accepted for publishing) cancer journals in the world. The standard of the science behind papers published in these journals will be second to none.
> 
> Now although exogenous IGF-1 (LR3) may not on its own give you cancer, its function in the body is to activate the AKT signaling cascade (read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKT) which regulates cell survival, suppresses apoptosis (cell death) and promotes angiogenesis (growth of new blood vessels). Now these are two of the most fundamental problems a cell has to overcome before it becomes cancerous (ignore signals from other cells telling it to die and tumors cant survive without nutrients and oxygen supplied by blood vessels) all tumors will have acquired these abnormal abilities so high levels of administered IGF-1 *could in theory* 'Help out' precancerous cells in their quest to grow uncontrollably and reek havoc in the body.


Really no more argument needed.

Its not proven just a hypnothesis.

Tats argument was more slanted towards the definate link.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

TGF where the studies came from is not in question but the section she chose to show does not give the full picture of the study for instance...what methods where used, history of participants(lifestyle etc...) i am not a scientist and do not ever kid myself in understanding some of the stuff they produce but as tom has pointed out this is all theory and like i said why not focus the argument on say Red Meat something that has a more proven track record of causing some types of cancer and something that Bodybuilders can use??


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Tinytom said:


> I think scientifically your whole argument is biased anyway *Tat as you are incredibly anti gear.*
> 
> So you haven't committed a fair argument. If this thread was peer reviewed then it would be discredited for that reason


I have chilled considerably. 

This is the issue, if it is well-established that elevated insulin, IGF-1 and GH is one of the known to be involved in tumourgenesis, then artificially creating this situation in your body could potentially be an issue.

I am sure it will be dose and length of cycle dependant if there is the potential for carcinogenesis.

However, there are people that could be more susceptible, and people that could be less susceptible due to biochemical individuality.

Some people are sensible with their use. Some are absolutely retarded morons and abuse the crap out of PEDs.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tat can you answer my question in why you have not pointed out the dangers of red meat and cancer if your intention was not to scaremonger??

the link between GH/IGF-1 is not well established at all as i say again if it was the FDA would not allow it to be used on children all these little sections of articles show is that they may contribute in theory.

give us the facts of the syudies (length of study, doses used, lifestyle of subjects etc..etc)

you may of chilled but you are still anti gear....


----------



## Delhi (Dec 8, 2005)

Tatyana said:


> Remember it took about 30-40 years of scientific research to prove a causative link between cigarette smoking, lung cancer and heart disease.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> Tat can you answer my question in why you have not pointed out the dangers of red meat and cancer if your intention was not to scaremonger??
> 
> the link between GH/IGF-1 is not well established at all as i say again if it was the FDA would not allow it to be used on children all these little sections of articles show is that they may contribute in theory.
> 
> ...


I meant to look in the BNF today to say what the counter indications are for GH and IGF-1 therapy.

I'll check on Sunday as I am on call.

I think I may have to post up a few of the BMJ articles about how corrupt the pharma industries are and how the FDA is powerless in a lot of cases.

I am not anti-steroid, I quite like geared up lads.

I just don't like them damaging themselves.

It is just because I care Paul 

*Accession number & update*

17349798 Medline 20070401.

*Title*

Doping with growth hormone/IGF-1, *anabolic* *steroids* or erythropoietin: is there a cancer risk?

*Source*

Pharmacological research : the official journal of the Italian Pharmacological Society, {Pharmacol-Res}, May 2007 (epub: 03 Feb 2007) , vol. 55, no. 5, p. 359-69, 119 refs, ISSN: 1043-6618.

*Author(s)*

Tentori-Lucio, Graziani-Grazia.

*Author affiliation*

Department of Neuroscience, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via Montpellier 1, 00133 Rome, Italy. [email protected].

*Abstract*

*Anabolic* *steroid* and peptide hormones or growth factors are utilized to increase the performance of athletes of professional or amateur sports. Despite their well-documented adverse effects, the use of some of these agents has significantly grown and has been extended also to non-athletes with the aim to improve appearance or to counteract ageing. Pre-clinical studies and epidemiological observations in patients with an excess of hormone production or in patients chronically treated with hormones/growth factors for various pathologies have warned about the potential risk of cancer development and progression which may be also associated to the use of certain doping agents. *Anabolic* *steroids* have been described to provoke liver tumours; growth hormone or high levels of its mediator insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) have been associated with colon, breast, and prostate cancers. Actually, IGF-1 promotes cell cycle progression and inhibits apoptosis either by triggering other growth factors or by interacting with pathways which have an established role in carcinogenesis and cancer promotion. More recently, the finding that erythropoietin (Epo) may promote angiogenesis and inhibit apoptosis or modulate chemo- or radiosensitivity in cancer cells expressing the Epo receptor, raised the concern that the use of recombinant Epo to increase tissue oxygenation might favour tumour survival and aggressiveness. Cancer risk associated to doping might be higher than that of patients using hormones/growth factors as replacement therapy, since enormous doses are taken by the athletes often for a long period of time. Moreover, these substances are often used in combination with other licit or illicit drugs and this renders almost unpredictable all the possible adverse effects including cancer. Anyway, athletes should be made aware that long-term treatment with doping agents might increase the risk of developing cancer.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tat all this is saying is their is a potential risk not that it is proven, remember the science community for many years where under the impression that Testosterone was the main cause of Prostate cancer it seems now they believe it is estrogen but i can bet you their are many articles saying test was the culprit

Tat you say that you care and that you are not anti-drugs well bodybuilding drugs so why have you not warned guys about red meat yet? it is a genuine question as red meat can cause bowel cancer their has been a proven link something that has not been proven with PEDs.....

i expect you to come back with some more sections of studies to conclude that the theory is there to the link


----------



## pauly7582 (Jan 16, 2007)

Are you a nurse T?

I think if you are then it shows in your posts. The informing, caring, sharing etc.

It was good to read how interested you were in the molcecular biology of cancer. The PhD route you mentioned is the one I'm going down right now with the aid of some reputed reserchers in the field.

My aim is that it will be my work being deliberated over in the future.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

pauly7582 said:


> Are you a nurse T?
> 
> I think if you are then it shows in your posts. The informing, caring, sharing etc.
> 
> ...


Ta hun,

I am a biomedical scientist.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> Tat all this is saying is their is a potential risk not that it is proven, remember the science community for many years where under the impression that Testosterone was the main cause of Prostate cancer it seems now they believe it is estrogen but i can bet you their are many articles saying test was the culprit
> 
> Tat you say that you care and that you are not anti-drugs well bodybuilding drugs so why have you not warned guys about red meat yet? it is a genuine question as red meat can cause bowel cancer their has been a proven link something that has not been proven with PEDs.....
> 
> i expect you to come back with some more sections of studies to conclude that the theory is there to the link


Paul, your point about red meat, sunlight and tea are all red herrings.

It doesn't make for a logical discussion.

*Description of Red Herring*

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.

Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.


----------



## redman (Feb 2, 2008)

The bottom line hear is there is not one single *definitive* study demonstarting a *direct* link between PEDs and an serious side effects.

This whole issue was rasied in 1990 in the USA when the american medical council advised the US government not to placed AASon the controlled substances list as thye COULD NOT PROVE A SINGLE LONG TERM SERIOUS SIDE EFFECT IN HEALTHY ADULT MEN, The DEA also apposed placing AAS on the controlled list.

I dont know you Tat and obviously you are a very intellegent woman however you have simply highlighted one side of the story where the "might" be a link however there are no definitive answers. Not all science is "maybe" I am sure you know but there are a number a statistical test (T-tests, confidence intervals etc) than will conclude a definate answer.

Your arguement is very Bias. I am sure I could search Pub,med and other search engines and come up with an equal amount of arugements stating IGF/GH/Slin have no effect on the chances of developing cancer etc.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

redman said:


> The bottom line hear is there is not one single definitive study demonstarting a direct link between PEDs and an serious side effects.
> 
> *How do you define serious sides? There are loads of papers related to lipid profiles, the heart and vaso-reactivity.*
> 
> ...


Go for it, do a search and see what you come up with. I didn't find any.

Search parameters on PubMed:

Anabolic steroids, humans, in English

I went through about 300 abstracts, and I didn't bother with any that had 'abuse' in the title.

I also saved quite a few abstracts where steroids are used therapeutically.

Too bad I didn't remember this one when Dr.HighIntensity was arguing in favour of orals 

I am just presenting abstracts and interpreting what they are saying.

I am not the one getting my knix in a twist about it.

*Accession number & update*

18225457 Medline 20080225.

*Title*

The many faces of testosterone.

*Source*

Clinical interventions in aging, {Clin-Interv-Aging}, 2007, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 567-76, 93 refs, ISSN: 1176-9092.

*Author(s)*

Bain-Jerald.

*Author affiliation*

Department of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. [email protected].

*Abstract*

Testosterone is more than a male sex hormone. It is an important contributor to the robust metabolic functioning of multiple bodily systems.

The abuse of *anabolic* *steroids* by athletes over the years has been one of the major detractors from the investigation and treatment of clinical states that could be caused by or related to male hypogonadism.

The unwarranted fear that testosterone therapy would induce prostate cancer has also deterred physicians form pursuing more aggressively the possibility of hypogonadism in symptomatic male patients.

In addition to these two mythologies, many physicians believe that testosterone is bad for the male heart. The classical *anabolic* agents, 17-alkylated *steroids,* are, indeed, potentially harmful to the liver, to insulin action to lipid metabolism.

These substances, however, are not testosterone, which has none of these adverse effects. The current evidence, in fact, strongly suggests that testosterone may be cardioprotective.

There is virtually no evidence to implicate testosterone as a cause of prostate cancer. It may exacerbate an existing prostate cancer, although the evidence is flimsy, but it does not likely cause the cancer in the first place.

Testosterone has stimulatory effects on bones, muscles, erythropoietin, libido, mood and cognition centres in the brain, penile erection. It is reduced in metabolic syndrome and diabetes and therapy with testosterone in these conditions may provide amelioration by lowering LDL cholesterol, blood sugar, glycated hemoglobin and insulin resistance.

The best measure is bio-available testosterone which is the fraction of testosterone not bound to sex hormone binding globulin. Several forms of testosterone administration are available making compliance much less of an issue with testosterone replacement therapy.

*Accession number & update*

16841196 Medline R 20071201.

*Title*

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of nonsteroidal androgen receptor ligands.

*Source*

Pharmaceutical research, {Pharm-Res}, Aug 2006, vol. 23, no. 8, p. 1641-58, 77 refs, ISSN: 0724-8741.

*Author(s)*

Gao-Wenqing, Kim-Juhyun, Dalton-James-T.

*Author affiliation*

Division of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.

*Abstract*

Testosterone and structurally related *anabolic* *steroids* have been used to treat hypogonadism, muscle wasting, osteoporosis, male contraception, cancer cachexia, anemia, and hormone replacement therapy in aging men or age-related frailty; while antiandrogens may be useful for treatment of conditions like acne, alopecia (male-pattern baldness), hirsutism, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer.

However, the undesirable physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of steroidal androgen receptor (AR) ligands limited their clinical use.

Nonsteroidal AR ligands with improved pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties have been developed to overcome these problems.

This review focuses on the pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and pharmacology of clinically used and emerging nonsteroidal AR ligands, including antagonists, agonists, and selective androgen receptor modulators.

Grant ID: R01 DK059800-07, Acronym: DK, Agency: United States NIDDK.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tat how is it a red herring?? you have not proved anything about PEDs and causing cancer not one thing, yet it is proven that red meat causes bowel cancer so how is that a red herring?

stop putting up sections of articles on the subject and put up a whole study that proves the use of GH/Slin or IGF-1LR3 has a definate link to cancer not a maybe or a might a definate link......

you hammer on about this all you want and you can avoid the questions i have asked concerning other causes of cancer that i am sure you have done or still do, you can even avoid the question i keep asking about the FDA it just goes to show you are very bias about the subject and in fact you know very little about it just how to google Pubmed.....


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tat you are anti-drugs your last reply proves this, why on earth are you on a steroid forum if you despise the use of the drugs?

I saw on BOI that you slagged the intelligence of this site nowadays so why are you still here?

have you ever used drugs of any kind tat?

have you smoked ?

do you drink alcohol?

if you reply yes to any of the above you are no more cautious about your health than any steroid user so stop preaching.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Tinytom said:


> I think scientifically your whole argument is biased anyway *Tat as you are incredibly anti gear.*
> 
> So you haven't committed a fair argument. If this thread was peer reviewed then it would be discredited for that reason


I have presented a fair argument.

None of you are bringing any logical arguments to the table.

C'mon chaps, step it up a bit.

The majority of the arguments are illogical and ad hominem (against me as I am biased)

*Description of Ad Hominem*

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.


The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). *Example of Ad Hominem*


Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." 
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." 
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" 
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> Tat you are anti-drugs your last reply proves this, why on earth are you on a steroid forum if you despise the use of the drugs?
> 
> I saw on BOI that you slagged the intelligence of this site nowadays so why are you still here?
> 
> ...


Ad hominem.


----------



## redman (Feb 2, 2008)

Ok ill dig up some papers.

I agree Lipid profiles are a potential issue but is is so easy to counteract this its not note worthy in my book as a serious side effect.

The general status of definitive side effects are allong the lines of. Gyno and acne.

When I say definative side effects I mean statisticaly significant results to a degree of p=0.05. The cut of point at where results from scientific studies are deemed to be significant rather than non significant or he results occured by random chance do to large varience in the standard dievation.

there are also a number of studies that demonstrate the hepatoxicity of 17aa is vastly over stated.

I will back this up and post papers as "proof"

Also one major down fall of all the above studies (as far as I can see and I admit I have scanned most of them) They all state connections to cancer etc through proposed mechanism and far too often offer no STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT p=0.05 evidence. Abstarcts often dont tell the full picture.



Tatyana said:


> Go for it, do a search and see what you come up with. I didn't find any.
> 
> Search parameters on PubMed:
> 
> ...


----------



## redman (Feb 2, 2008)

Ok let me just go through the points you have highlighted hear.

1/ *It is well established that bioactivity of free insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1) increases tumor turnover rate.*

No where does this state that IGF1 Lr3 increase the risk of cancer. IGF1 Lr3 is not free IGF1, It circulates as IGF1 Lr3 until it reaches a receptor. If taken post workout in the lower dose range the majority of IGF1Lr3 will be a localized effect. Also free IGF1 increases tumor cell turnover rate. This means if the patient already had cancer they may be at risk but nowhere does it state it increases the risk of developing the cancer in the first place,



*2/ **In the past few years both laboratory investigations and population studies have provided some circumstantial evidence that insulin growth factor biochemical derangements may contribute to carcinogenesis.*

The words some circumstantial evidence say to me this is far from statistically significant.



*3/ **Several studies implicate hyperinsulinism, a condition that prevails prior to the onset of diabetes (part of metabolic syndrome) as candidate mediator in carcinogenesis*

We are talking about individuals with hyperinsulinism hear not health people taking slin.

*4**/ **Another aspect of IGF physiology is the IGF signaling. In this signaling process, IGF-1 receptor is a predominant factor and is crucial for tumor transformation and survival of malignant cell. It has comparatively less role in normal cell growth*

Fair point hear. However this whole paper simply quantifying the mechanisms and not addressing the issue of IGF 1 LR3 "supplementation"

5/ *risk of developing cancer due to high levels of circulating IGF-1.*

Ok now IMO this highlighted portion of the post is blatant bias. The whole sentence actually reads&#8230;&#8230;.We hypothesize that

people with insulin resistance are at *risk of developing cancer due to high levels of circulating IGF-1. **The words hypothesize and people with insulin resistance dispel the bias highlighted portion hear. I must admit I have lost a degree of respect for you on that one! Come on play fair.*

*
*

*
*

*
**NEXT PAPER.*



*1/ **Actually, IGF-1 promotes cell cycle progression and inhibits apoptosis either by triggering other growth factors or by interacting with pathways which have an established role in carcinogenesis and cancer promotion.*

Fair point however IGF-1 " interacts with pathways". Estabilished with carcinogenesis. This is still not definitive evidence but caution should be taken hear. Dose seem a little scare mongerish!

*NEXT PAPER.*

*1/**Tumour growth was increased by the IGFs, especially by LR3-IGF-I, even though these peptides did not promote growth of the adenocarcinoma in cell culture.*

Good solid link hear. Don't take IGF1 LR3 if you HAVE cancer! Personally if I had cancer I think IGF1 Lr3 would be the last thing on my mind.

*NEXT PAPER.*

*1/**The insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF-IR) and insulin receptor are either overactivated and/or overexpressed in a wide range of tumor types and contribute to tumorigenicity, proliferation, metastasis, and drug resistance*.

Again a good solid link. If you have cancer don't take IGF1 LR3.

NEXT PAPER.

1/

*Long-term insulin-like growth factor-I expression in skeletal muscles attenuates the enhanced in vitro proliferation ability of the resident satellite cells in transgenic mice.*

*2/This is an important issue to address if a prolonged course of IGF-I is to be used clinically in muscle-wasting conditions where satellite cells may become limiting in mice*

*3/These findings, therefore, suggest that there is no further beneficial effect on enhancing satellite cell proliferation ability with persistent long-term expression of IGF-I in skeletal muscles of these transgenic mice.*

*One word **MICE**.*

Tat this is by no means a personal attack.

Point 5 on the first paper clearly demonstartes your bias view. Highlight the whole sentense not just the part that makes it look worst.

I.E.

The whole sentense.

*We hypothesize that people with insulin resistance are at risk of developing cancer due to high levels of circulating IGF-1*

You made this read.

We hypothesize that people with insulin resistance are at *risk of developing cancer due to high levels of circulating IGF-1*

Equally I could make this read.

*We hypothesize that people with insulin resistance* are at risk of developing cancer due to high levels of circulating IGF-1.

IMO you have actually rasied some vaild points but you seem hell bent on undermining everyone intellegence with terms such as. Ad hominem.

I would conclude from the abstarcts you have posted it is seriously not a good Idea to take IGF1Lr3 or the SLIN/GH Combo if you HAVE CANCER however if you do not, you are healthy and use it reponsibly there is a simular risk or getting cancer from IGF1LR3 use as you have having a glass of red wine with your dinner, driking tea, walking around in th sun and pollution or any other cancer causing activity. As we are warned today that every other thing on the planet causes cancer I really dont see much of an issue hear.

Tat I have a Degree and a pHD and I know the relavence of scientific studies however I also live in the real world and the TRUTH lies somewhere in the middle, Take the BOUCHARD heritage family stud, this basically proved the addaptation to CV training to be massively genetic. I expect that the prevelance to disease is also simular, IMO If you have a disposition to get cancer you will get cancer

There are no human studies on IGF1 LR3 to my knowledge but one thing I know for certain its It works!


----------



## pauly7582 (Jan 16, 2007)

Tatyana said:


> Ta hun,
> 
> I am a biomedical scientist.


I bet when people see that you train they never guess your involved in a field like that.

I've had army, PTI, marines before.

What area of biomedicine are you in T? :thumbup1:


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Redman, that is the sort of response I would expect, props 

I will have a closer read tomorrow.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

tat no need to step it up as you keep avoiding the questions and still do not provide the conclusive proof.....same old Tat i see


----------



## redman (Feb 2, 2008)

Tatyana said:


> Redman, that is the sort of response I would expect, props
> 
> I will have a closer read tomorrow.


eddited to make it easier to read.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

> The words hypothesize and people with insulin resistance dispel the bias highlighted portion hear. I must admit I have lost a degree of respect for you on that one! Come on play fair.


Why?

I am posting scientific papers.

You even kicked off a bit when I posted a 'steroids good' abstract.

Again, ad hominum

Some of you lads could use a lesson in logic, logical fallacies and how to contruct a proper argument.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> tat no need to step it up as you keep avoiding the questions and still do not provide the conclusive proof.....same old Tat i see


What is that meant to mean?

I request you stop with the passive aggressive attacks, they are not becoming.

Which questions?

Conclusive proof of what?


----------



## redman (Feb 2, 2008)

Tatyana said:


> Why?
> 
> I am posting scientific papers.
> 
> ...


I lost respect because you used a "media" style trick when highlighting part of a sentense making it scan differentally to the layman.

1) the sentense reads.

We hypothesize that people with insulin resistance are at risk of developing cancer due to high levels of circulating IGF-1.

The conculsions to be drawn... The author THINKS (hypothesizes) that insulin resistant individulas are at risk of developing cancer due to high levels of circulating IGF-1. (notice the words "hypothise" and "insulin resistant individuals")

In the origional post you highlighted only part of the sentence.

As thus.

We hypothesize that people with insulin resistance are at *risk of developing cancer due to high levels of circulating IGF-1.*

90% of individuals will scan that and conclude that there is SOLID evidence that EVERYONE is at risk of developing cancer due to high levels of circulating IGF-1. Which simply is not true. I could quite easily go through a number of posts and highlight only parts of a sentense and make them scan very differentally.

I disagree with your comment that words like hypothesis, think, maybe are standard scientific language. They are not, when there is EVIDENCE to a STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE p=0.05 thses words are not used. words and phrases such as, "there is statistical evidence", definate, concluive etc are used.

I argued every point you posted with a logical non personal explaination and closed the arguement with reference to the famous bouchard heritage study yet you still reply "Ad Hominem". You have not supplied a counter arguement and seem to be avoiding this with the reply Ad Hominem.

1) You post an abstract and number of abstracts, highlight parts of the abstract or part of a sentence within the abstract.

2) When I counter the arguement and actually make a valid logical explaination you reply. Ad Hominem to one small part of may reply instaed of looking at the whole post in a holistic fashion. i.e I disregard the studies with terms such as maybe, we hypothesise, a trend and/or animal studies. I also read the whole abstract or study and see that things are not quite black and white. I even concluded that IGF1 LR3 should not be taken if you HAVE cancer.

You have avoid answering any questions instaed you focus on a tiny portion of each reply and make an issue of that. You also assume that I am pro steroids.

My observation and the otheres on hear are valid.

1) You are Bias in your arguements. The evidence can be seen in the fact you highlight only part of the sentense making it scan to favour your arguement.

2) You avoid questions you cannot answer with logic. The evidence can be seen hear as you have left many questions unanswered.

3) You are narrow minded in you view. Your arguement is strongly weighed despite of the terminology used such as "we hypothesise" "trends" "maybe". You have also failed to sumise all the studies together as a holistic view.

I have and concluded....

IGF1 LR3 is likely to excellerate the growth of a cancer if you have an existing tumor, if you do not have an existing tumor there is not no conclusive evidence to suggest that the use of IGF1 LR3 will trigger cancer, however individuals taking IGF1 Lr3 shoud be cautious.

You are likely to conclude Ad Hominem as I disagree with you on many points and claim this as som sort of discredit.

I challenge you to counter argue the points I posted with regards to your highlighted aspects of the abstracts and I challenge you to justify highlighting only part of a sentense with regards to concluding an unbias balanced arguement.


----------



## thestudbeast (Jul 20, 2007)

Tatyana said:


> Paul, your point about red meat, sunlight and tea are all red herrings.
> 
> It doesn't make for a logical discussion.
> 
> ...


patronize or *-ise* Verb

[*-izing*, *-ized*] or *-ising*, *-ised*

*1*. to treat (someone) in a condescending way

*2*. to be a patron of

*patronizing*

*-ising* adj

*patronizingly*

*-isingly* adv


----------



## redman (Feb 2, 2008)

Hear is an example using a studies of how you can bias the layman and an example of exactally how you have presented your arguement.I even used a whole sentense unlike you in the first example. The second example outlines exactally what you had done.

*IGF-1, IGF-2 and IGFBP-3 in prediagnostic serum: association with colorectal cancer in a cohort of Chinese men in Shanghai.*

*Probst-Hensch NM*, *Yuan JM*, *Stanczyk FZ*, *Gao YT*, *Ross RK*, *Yu MC*.

Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Basel, Steinengraben 49, Basel, 4051, Switzerland.

This is the first study to investigate the associations of IGF-1, IGF-2 and IGFBP-3 concentrations with the risk of colorectal cancer in prospectively collected blood samples from an Oriental population. Between 1986 and 1989 serum samples were collected at baseline from 18 244 men, aged 45-65 years, without a history of cancer and living in Shanghai, China. IGF-1, IGF-2 and IGFBP-3 were measured in the serum of 135 men who developed colorectal cancer over 12 years of follow-up and 661 control subjects drawn from the cohort, who were matched to the index cases by neighbourhood of residence, age, and year and month of sample collection. *Serum IGF-1 was not associated with risk of colorectal cancer*. IGF-2 and IGFBP-3, on the other hand, exhibited statistically significant, positive associations with colorectal cancer risk when cases were confined to those diagnosed within a relatively short time period after enrollment (within 8 years). After adjustment for body mass index, cigarette smoking and alcohol intake, men in the highest versus the lowest quintile of IGF-2 and IGFBP-3 showed odds ratios of 2.74 (95% Cl = 1.67-4.50; 2-sided P for trend = 0.0008) and 2.85 (95% Cl = 1.69-4.81; 2-sided P for trend = 0.01), respectively. Our data thus suggest that circulating IGF-2 and IGFBP-3 can serve as early indicators of impending colorectal cancer. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign.

Associations among IRS1, IRS2, IGF1, and IGFBP3 Genetic Polymorphisms and Colorectal Cancer

Martha L. Slattery1, Wade Samowitz2, Karen Curtin1, Khe Ni Ma1, Michael Hoffman1, Bette Caan3 and Susan Neuhausen4

1 Health Research Center and 2 Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; 3 Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, Oakland, California; and 4 Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California

Requests for reprints: Martha L. Slattery, Health Research Center, University of Utah, 375 Chipeta Way, Suite A, Salt Lake City, UT 84108. Phone: 801-585-6955; Fax: 801-581-3623. E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction: Insulin, insulin-like growth factor (IGF), and IGF binding protein (IGFBP) are involved in cell growth and proliferation and are thought to be important in the etiology of colorectal cancer. We hypothesize that genetic polymorphisms of insulin receptor substrates (IRS-1 and IRS-2), IGF-I, and IGFBP-3 alter colorectal cancer risk because of their roles in the insulin-related signaling pathway. Methods: Data from a population-based incident case-control study of 1,346 colon cancer cases and 1,544 population-based controls and 952 rectal cancer cases and 1,205 controls were used to evaluate associations. Genetic polymorphisms of four genes were investigated: an IGF1 CA repeat, the IGFBP3 -202 A > C, the IRS1 G972R, and the IRS2 G1057D. Results: Having at least one R allele (GR or RR) for IRS1 G972R was associated with an increased risk of colon cancer [odds ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.1-1.9]. The IRS2 G972R heterozygote GD genotype significantly reduced risk of colon cancer (odds ratio 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-0.9). *Neither the IGF1 nor the IGFBP3 variants was associated independently with colon cancer*, but there was an association when examined with IRS1. Individuals with an IRS1 R allele and IGF1 non-192 allele were at a 2-fold increased risk of colon cancer (95% CI 1.2-4.4). There was a 70% (95% CI 1.02-2.8) increased risk of colon cancer with an IRS1 R allele and the IGFBP3 AC or CC genotype. The IRS2 GD genotype reduced risk of colon cancer, except among those with an IRS1 R allele. No significant associations were seen in analyses of main effects or interactions of these variants and rectal cancer risk. Conclusions: Both IRS1 and IRS2 variants were associated with colon cancer risk independently. Associations were slightly stronger when polymorphisms in multiple genes were evaluated in conjunction with other genes rather than individually. These data suggest that the insulin-related pathway may be important in the etiology of colon cancer but not rectal cancer.

The above study also outlins that Cancer risk is a largely genetic and multifactorial


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Hey Tat

Can you find a study linking cancer in IGF1 and competitive athletes?

That WOULD be of relevance I think and I'd certainly pay that more credence.

Theres no definate link at all from what I've seen.

If you can find some of those studies I can give you some good dieting articles in return to help you with your prep.


----------



## Five-O (May 21, 2006)

Tatyana said:


> What is that meant to mean?
> 
> I request you stop with the passive aggressive attacks, they are not becoming.
> 
> ...


Well, lets get to the point....eh

That all your articles and theories are not really relevant to what this forum is about....


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tatyana said:


> I request you stop with the passive aggressive attacks, they are not becoming.


please show me an aggressive posts i have made.....



Tatyana said:


> Which questions? ?


Q1 - If you are so bothered about bodybuilders health why not post an article about other forms of cancer that could relate to bodybuilders for example the link between bowel cancer and red meat?

Q2 - If the link is so strong between IGF-1/GH and cancer why do you think the FDA has approved its use for children?

Q3 - what are your thoughts on naturally increasing GH/IGF-1 through intense training as some studies put the increase as much as 400%

ooops there was one more question....

Q4 - why did you slate the grey matter and intelligence of this site and the members over on BOI?

i think those will do for now.....and yes they have all been asked and side stepped by yourself in this thread.



Tatyana said:


> Conclusive proof of what?


this link you are talking about between IGF-1/GH and cancer as nothing that you have posted gives conclusive proof it is all maybes and mights along with theory's....

All you are doing is posting up half sections of studies that theorise their is a link you have not given any doses used or length of studies or even life history of the subjects involved when you do then we can see if their is a link to cancer that would concern a bodybuilder....


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

"Passive aggressive" new favourite term? Did someone read a psyche book this week


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison&#8230;." Paracelsus (1493-1541)

http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe...ences/dose.html

Sunlight is a very good example. Too much sun can induce melanoma or other skin cancers...but too little sun/vitamin D is correlated with higher occurrence of prostate cancer and also breast cancer in women in the Northeast where there is low sunlight from late October-March.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/96/2/252

"Generally, exercise's beneficial effects in the context of aging and longevity are best observed with moderate and repeated bouts of exercise interrupted by a period of normal life activity."

Just doing exercise causes the generation of reactive oxygen species (toxic in large quantities but stimulating in small quantities) in tissue. There is a reason that people usually w/o for an hour or so, rather than the 4-5 h that leads to catabolism.

You might enjoy this article.

http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/AJPT/AJPT3127-40.pdf


----------



## redman (Feb 2, 2008)

Tatyana said:


> "All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison&#8230;." Paracelsus (1493-1541)
> 
> Hmmmm.
> 
> ...


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

So tat what about answering the 4 questions i asked 

i am sure we would all like to know the answer to question 4?

You cannot dismiss redman's postings because they are from 18yrs ago when you have yourself quoted studies from years ago.....

so back to the questions Tat.......hows the diet going?


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

And no deleting the thread when you cant win cos we'll just reinstate it again:thumb:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tinytom said:


> And no deleting the thread when you cant win cos we'll just reinstate it again:thumb:


You did not attempt to delete the thread did you Tat? why was that is it because you are being proved wrong or that we are not intelligent on here to converse with you?

so back to question 4


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

Not sure how relevant these articles are to conversation.

But seems that if you have breast augmentation then likely hood of some very bad things happening.

Who would ever take the risk????? :whistling:

http://www.nci.nih.gov/newscenter/silicone-mortality

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Silicone-Breast-Implants-Cause-Immunity-Problems-Even-Cancer-43930.shtml


----------



## chrisj22 (Mar 22, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> You did not attempt to delete the thread did you Tat? why was that is it because you are being proved wrong or that we are not intelligent on here to converse with you?
> 
> so back to question 4


pmsl....

that made me chuckle. :lol:


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

The saccharide thread was deleted too, sadly I took time typing some stuff out of a book I have.

Thing is, most of us do know the risk of cancer with IGF-1, I would suggest that any one with a diagnosis of cancer not take gear or IGF-1.


----------



## Five-O (May 21, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> ooops there was one more question....
> 
> Q4 - why did you slate the grey matter and intelligence of this site and the members over on BOI?


Ive got some thoughts on this but Ill reserve them for now.

:cursing:


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Most drugs have never been tested on children, they are not really licensed for children, it is more of a case of there is no other option, so they use the drugs.

So yes, the FDA would approve of a drug before they know that it is actually safe in a child.

There is also another issue with politicians having stocks in pharmaceutical companies, doing things like silencing the surgeon general, not allowing scientist in the FDA (and the EPA) speak out about certain issues as it does not fit the political agenda of the current government, or it doesn't make for good economics.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the biggest money makers on the planet, and they have commited a litany of absolutely amoral acts.

http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/pediatrictrial101507.html

Up until the last decade, children were rarely included in studies of medical treatments. As a result, much is still unknown about how children respond to drugs, some biologics (such as gene therapy), and medical devices.

*"We had the peculiar situation of demanding a very high level of proof before a product was marketed for adults, but then having it used 'off-label' in children,"* says Dianne Murphy, M.D., Director of the Office of Pediatric Therapeutics at the Food and Drug Administration.

*This means that FDA did not have studies on how the product did or did not work in children, what different kinds of reactions children might have, or what the proper dose would be over the wide range of children's ages, weights, and developmental stages, Murphy says. *

But FDA's pediatric program, backed by federal laws, has helped propel more clinical trials to be conducted in children. And more parents may be considering whether to enroll a child in a clinical trial.

By taking part in a trial, your child may be offered a new treatment that may or may not be better than those that already exist. Your child can also help the medical community understand how the treatment works and how it should be used in children. "Some studies have shown that children, especially with chronic diseases, have a strong altruistic tendency and may want to contribute to knowledge of their own disease," Murphy says.

*Why Clinical Trials in Children are Important* 

Clinical trials yield important information on a medical product's safety, dosing, and effectiveness, which is the basis for FDA approval and product labeling. Health care providers use labeling information to prescribe the right product for their patients and to monitor them for potential side effects. This includes prescribing the right drug at the right dose.

*Historically, only 20-30% of drugs approved by FDA have been labeled for use in children. So, by necessity, doctors routinely give drugs to children off label.*

" We need to do clinical trials in children so that a child will not be an experiment of one every time a doctor prescribes a drug," says Murphy.

Children's responses to drugs can't always be predicted from data collected in adult studies, says FDA's Pediatric Bioethicist Robert Nelson, M.D., M.Div., Ph.D. A child grows and the metabolism changes as he or she gets older, he says. "These changes mean the child has a different susceptibility to side effects over time. We may think we can predict some of these differences, but we really can't without studying them."


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> You did not attempt to delete the thread did you Tat? why was that is it because you are being proved wrong or that we are not intelligent on here to converse with you?
> 
> so back to question 4


I deleted the thread as it has (and still is) disintegrating into nothing but ad hominem attacks.

It is not my intention to generate conflict, I wasn't aware that there would be such a furor about a few scientific papers.

The intelligence of the site.

I just read a thread where one chap was unable to actually specifically state what dose of steroids he was on and was quite shocked to find out that it was 1650 mg/week.

I am sure I could find a few more examples where the lack of care and attention what people are doing to their bodies could be interpreted as a lack of intelligence.

If you find yourself reacting to my comments, it probably says more about you than it does about me.

I think that this was explained by Tom and the 'alpha male' concept, but related to being secure in yourself.

People could call me stupid and it wouldn't bother me at all, as I know that I am not stupid. I do stupid things on occasion, but then again, who doesn't.

It is not mutally exclusive to this site. I just remembered it having more members that were more clued up than it actually has.

I have called people retards for their absolute lack of research or knowledge about what they are doing to their bodies on other sites as well.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

To be fair Tat your post implies that the replies are irrelevant to the discussion but Redman and Paul and other have proposed quite pertinant repsonses which you didnt really reply to apart from quoting other journals.

Would it be fair to say that the debate is quite an open one and that from all this no real conclusion can be established which is the same with most scientific papers thas there is always a counter study.

Also to say that there is no grey matter on here just because of ONE example that you have listed of ONE persons misunderstanding of their course is not a very scientific conclusion.

Also this site is partly about education and Im sure the person has learned from his mistake which is actually a bonus not a detriment to the site. You yourself have been helped by Paul I believe when you were using smoothies on your diet and he advised you to stop so you would get a better condition?

I can list many many examples of people who have been helped on this site by the advice of members and mods. That would serve to counter your argument of no grey matter.

Also interestingly do all the people who suffer from acromegaly also die of cancer? The high amount of GH in their system would be a perfect case study.

As with everything in life people are different but there are soem interesting points made by all sides.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tatyana said:


> Most drugs have never been tested on children, they are not really licensed for children, it is more of a case of there is no other option, so they use the drugs.
> 
> So yes, the FDA would approve of a drug before they know that it is actually safe in a child.


the fact you are now saying that the FDA would approve a drug to be used on children without knowing the side effects speaks volumes of your intelligence on this matter...



Tatyana said:


> I deleted the thread as it has (and still is) disintegrating into nothing but ad hominem attacks.


there has been no attacks Tat just many guys disagreeing with your stance and you don't like it, you constantly side step questions just to re-post sections of irrelevant studies that show no facts of the subjects and doses used.......



Tatyana said:


> It is not my intention to generate conflict, I wasn't aware that there would be such a furor about a few scientific papers.


it is called a difference of a opinion Tat you don't like it because it differs with yours, as for scientific papers well when you post up a complete one then we might change our minds....



Tatyana said:


> The intelligence of the site.
> 
> I just read a thread where one chap was unable to actually specifically state what dose of steroids he was on and was quite shocked to find out that it was 1650 mg/week.
> 
> I am sure I could find a few more examples where the lack of care and attention what people are doing to their bodies could be interpreted as a lack of intelligence.


this site is for those who know nothing to learn as well as those who are in the game to learn more, if i remember rightly a few years ago you knew nothing about dieting and turned up to a show in shocking condition(your words at the time not mine) and i helped you with your diet, plus didn't you smoke a spliff before entering a natural show once only to be disqualified? the point i am trying to make everyone is at a point where they know nothing and sites like these help those people......so yes you do get questions like the ones you have pointed out....



Tatyana said:


> If you find yourself reacting to my comments, it probably says more about you than it does about me.
> 
> I think that this was explained by Tom and the 'alpha male' concept, but related to being secure in yourself.


you seem to again mistake reaction to opinion i have one that differs from yours mine is based on many years of trial and error on myself and coaching others yours is based on scientific papers that have not real relevance in the real world as for me being secure in my self hey Tat i am 38 have a wonderful family a great job and i am successful in my chosen hobby i think i can say i am secure....what about you babe as you seem to have the need to cause conflict every where you go?

People could call me stupid and it wouldn't bother me at all, as I know that I am not stupid. I do stupid things on occasion, but then again, who doesn't.

It is not mutually exclusive to this site. I just remembered it having more members that were more clued up than it actually has.



Tatyana said:


> I have called people retards for their absolute lack of research or knowledge about what they are doing to their bodies on other sites as well.


there is 2 types of research Tat real world and scientific unfortunately you seem to think that science is the only one that counts, you are not stupid Tat far from it in fact i just feel you believe that if a paper that is published says something then it is to be believed beyond all other things this is a mistake and a flaw in your research methods.....

now please answer the questions.....



> *Q1 - If you are so bothered about bodybuilders health why not post an article about other forms of cancer that could relate to bodybuilders for example the link between bowel cancer and red meat?*
> 
> *Q2 - If the link is so strong between IGF-1/GH and cancer why do you think the FDA has approved its use for children?*
> 
> ...


as for question 4 my point is not that you feel the intelligence of the site and the members is not great but why you felt you had to go onto another site and slate us was it to fit in Tat??


----------



## Five-O (May 21, 2006)

I think you summed it up well here Paul;



> there is 2 types of research Tat real world and scientific unfortunately you seem to think that science is the only one that counts, you are not stupid Tat far from it in fact i just feel you believe that if a paper that is published says something then it is to be believed beyond all other things this is a mistake and a flaw in your research methods.....


All she is doing is quoting articles/studies which I am still failing to see the point of with regards to this site and its content...

Im glad you also highlighted the mistakes she made when she 1st started competing, it seems to me she has a holier than thou attitude tbh, also seems you helped her out a lot and she's being slightly arrogant and disrespectful IMO.

ps; wasn't she once banned on here? Was that not for sh1t stirring or something.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Tinytom said:


> To be fair Tat your post implies that the replies are irrelevant to the discussion but Redman and Paul and other have proposed quite pertinant repsonses which you didnt really reply to apart from quoting other journals.
> 
> Would it be fair to say that the debate is quite an open one and that from all this no real conclusion can be established which is the same with most scientific papers thas there is always a counter study.
> 
> ...


I haven't had time to respond to every individual post, there are quite a few.

I think if you go back and review some of the earlier posts, you will find that I stated that cancer is multifactorial, that this may be a risk to some, and not a risk to others.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> the fact you are now saying that the FDA would approve a drug to be used on children without knowing the side effects speaks volumes of your intelligence on this matter...


Actually, I do know quite a bit about this.

I regularly read the British Medical Journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, and The Lancet.

Not a single issue (BMJ is weekly) goes by without some mention of some adverse event from drugs, an incident where a pharmaceutical company did not disclose all of the adverse events from a drug trial, or where an unethical code of practice by a pharmaceutical company has been discovered.

It is shocking.

It really is profit over people the majority of the time.

Here is an example of one of them, it is not the full article, I have access to the paper copies at work, and there is copyright to post the entire article without everyone having proper access

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/335/7611/114

BMJ 2007;335:114 (21 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.39279.393345.BE

*News*

*Former US surgeon general reveals extent of political pressure he was under*

*Janice Hopkins Tanne*

New York

A former US surgeon general told a Congressional committee last week that while he was in office he had been forbidden by the Bush administration to speak on topics such as stem cell research, emergency contraception, sex education, health of prisoners, mental health, secondhand smoking, and global health issues.

Richard Carmona, the last surgeon general, told the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that he had been instructed to mention President Bush three times on each page of his speeches, which were vetted by officials at the parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. Travel to conferences was prevented, and he was told not to attend the special Olympic games for disabled athletes, which were supported by the Kennedy family.

When he wanted to issue information about mental health after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States he was told by his . . . [Full text of this article]

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/335/7615/327

BMJ 2007;335:327 (18 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.39307.438252.59

*Observations*

*Yankee doodling*

*Internal affairs*

*Douglas Kamerow*, former US assistant surgeon general and a BMJ associate editor[/B]

[email protected]

A former US surgeon general's testimony reveals battles between science and politics

*The first 150 words of the **full text** of this article appear below.*

In a July hearing of the US Congress the immediate past US surgeon general, Richard Carmona, testified about the problem of political meddling in what he saw as the proper functions and activities of his office.

Carmona spoke generally about repeated interference by the Bush administration (which appointed him) in his attempts to speak out on controversial issues, such as stem cell research, abstinence only sex education, and the emergency contraceptive pill (BMJ 2007;335:114 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39279.393345.BE). His speeches were scrubbed of any mention of these matters, even when his comments were based on science.

The former surgeon general also said that he was told by an unnamed senior official that he didn't "get it" when it came to the political basis for scientific reports that he wanted to release and that the reports had to agree with the administration's political agenda or they would not be approved. Two . . . [Full text of this article]



> there has been no attacks Tat just many guys disagreeing with your stance and you don't like it, you constantly side step questions just to re-post sections of irrelevant studies that show no facts of the subjects and doses used.......


That is fine to debate a topic, however, I do not see how issue like how my diet is going, what I have said on another board, that I have breast implants, or even what I have done in the past relate to this discussion, which is do insulin, GH and IGF-1 pose a cancer risk?

It is killing the messenger instead of debating the message, attacking the person rather than the topic.

It doesn't allow for the conversation to forward really, which is why I have mostly avoided this thread.



> it is called a difference of a opinion Tat you don't like it because it differs with yours, as for scientific papers well when you post up a complete one then we might change our minds....


People can do what they want.

When is knowledge or the latest research such a threat?



> this site is for those who know nothing to learn as well as those who are in the game to learn more, if i remember rightly a few years ago you knew nothing about dieting and turned up to a show in shocking condition(your words at the time not mine) and i helped you with your diet, plus didn't you smoke a spliff before entering a natural show once only to be disqualified? the point i am trying to make everyone is at a point where they know nothing and sites like these help those people......so yes you do get questions like the ones you have pointed out....
> 
> you seem to again mistake reaction to opinion i have one that differs from yours mine is based on many years of trial and error on myself and coaching others yours is based on scientific papers that have not real relevance in the real world as for me being secure in my self hey Tat i am 38 have a wonderful family a great job and i am successful in my chosen hobby i think i can say i am secure....what about you babe as you seem to have the need to cause conflict every where you go?


I have posted this research on at least three other BBing forums, and the response on this site is completely different from the other sites.

People could call me stupid and it wouldn't bother me at all, as I know that I am not stupid. I do stupid things on occasion, but then again, who doesn't.

It is not mutually exclusive to this site. I just remembered it having more members that were more clued up than it actually has.



> there is 2 types of research Tat real world and scientific unfortunately you seem to think that science is the only one that counts, you are not stupid Tat far from it in fact i just feel you believe that if a paper that is published says something then it is to be believed beyond all other things this is a mistake and a flaw in your research methods.....
> 
> now please answer the questions.....


Erm, I am not sure where you get that from.

I do have a level of scientific literacy that allows me to critically assess scientific papers.

Some are good, some are quite dreadful.

Some are published with conflict of interest and lead to all sort of of issues, such and the Andrew Wakefield and the autism/MMR that he proposed.



> as for question 4 my point is not that you feel the intelligence of the site and the members is not great but why you felt you had to go onto another site and slate us was it to fit in Tat??


I answered this question already.

What has you go on about it?


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Five-O said:


> I think you summed it up well here Paul;
> 
> All she is doing is quoting articles/studies which I am still failing to see the point of with regards to this site and its content...
> 
> ...


The articles were related to this site as people take these drugs.

I thought they would like to know everything about what they put in their bodies, the good, the bad, potential sides.

Yes I was banned from here once.

It was because I saw the male animal, and I confessed that I had done this, so I was banned for that.

Now, I request you stop stirring the pot.

I would rather have all of the issues raised on this thread resolved in a friendly matter.

If there is any other issue that you have with me, then please state them now and let it go.

Thanks.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Is this the offending post Paul?



> I am no longer banned from UK-M, but it does seem like the grey matter on that site now is slim pickings.


http://www.brothersofiron.com/showthread.php?t=2597


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tat i have never said anything about your implants why would i? although their is a cancer risk with them...... :innocent:

in your long last post you have again side stepped the fact that actual experinace is just as important as science in fact most scientist would welcome real life experiances you just dismiss everyone elses opinions in favour of your own, the fact that you have posted this on other forums and they have not responded like us means what?? nothing thats what it means they have there own opinion....like i said Tat post up an article that is relevant with all data attached and people will respect your view....

as for answering the questions i asked no you have not.....

you have given your opinion on one question about the FDA...

can you point me to the post where you answered these questions please...

Q1 - If you are so bothered about bodybuilders health why not post an article about other forms of cancer that could relate to bodybuilders for example the link between bowel cancer and red meat? Quote:

*Q3 - what are your thoughts on naturally increasing GH/IGF-1 through intense training as some studies put the increase as much as 400%*

ooops there was one more question....

*Q4 - why did you slate the grey matter and intelligence of this site and the members over on BOI?*



Tatyana said:


> Is this the offending post Paul?
> 
> I am no longer banned from UK-M, but it does seem like the grey matter on that site now is slim pickings.
> 
> http://www.brothersofiron.com/showthread.php?t=2597


no this is the quote:



Tatyana said:


> UK-M is a bit boring now, and while there are some smart people on it, the level of idiots and retards is quite overwhelming.


so actually you slated the site twice.....

as for a dig by asking how your diet was going how is that a dig....tell you what get off your high horse and stop thinking everyone is either kissing your ass or kicking it.....


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Bump for Tat to answer questions


----------



## bkoz (Apr 29, 2008)

This is a study based on diabetics not normal healthy aas gh and insulin users.Until they start doing studys on healthy individuals and not aids patients or diabetics we will never know.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

bkoz this post only intention is to scaremonger non of the studies that have been put up holds any validity in the bodybuilding world...


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Hmmmm, it seems Tat has left the building?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

who can blame her as we have no intelligence over here anymore


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

I think the fact that we did not just take her 'copy and pastes' as gospel says a huge amount about the level of 'grey matter' on this board.

It certainly far outweighs the average IQ of a certain US board she posts on.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Nytol said:


> I think the fact that we did not just take her 'copy and pastes' as gospel says a huge amount about the level of 'grey matter' on this board.
> 
> It certainly far outweighs the average IQ of a certain US board she posts on.


Which one?, she is on many


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

hackskii said:


> Which one?, she is on many


I have a more fulfilled life than to read that much,  , the one with a magazine of the same name :whistling:

I like the magazine BTW, but the info on the web site, leaves much to be desired.


----------



## DoubleDcups (Sep 16, 2004)

hackskii said:


> Which one?, she is on many


The patronising **** can be found all over MD like a ****ing rash. She pulls the same routine there that she pulled here before being lead on a leesh by Paul and Redman.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2008)

What is it with these ultra opinionated cut and paste women:confused1: it seems every board has one, i remember on a few american boards which arent around any more there was one called vin diesal who had very similar stats to tat and she was even worse IMO pretty much ruined a couple of boards.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

cut and pasting is fine but you need to define the entire study to make it relevant to the audience you are preaching to...in this case the person in question likes to constantly preach to steroid users....


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Con said:


> What is it with these ultra opinionated cut and paste women:confused1: it seems every board has one, i remember on a few american boards which arent around any more there was one called vin diesal who had very similar stats to tat and she was even worse IMO pretty much ruined a couple of boards.


Ha ha ha ha ha

I know Vin :thumb:


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> cut and pasting is fine but you need to define the entire study to make it relevant to the audience you are preaching to...in this case the person in question likes to constantly preach to steroid users....


 Agreed, but so did the other person i mentioned

Paste and copy is great because it helps get more info to the board however if you havent done some thing such as aas i dont think your opinion on aas needs to be stated. If i wanted bs opinions from people who didnt use any thing i would walk down the street and ask some one about the dangerous of steriods.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Con said:


> however if you havent done some thing such as aas i dont think your opinion on aas needs to be stated.


I totally agree with this, especially the fear posts.


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Con said:


> Agreed, but so did the other person i mentioned
> 
> Paste and copy is great because it helps get more info to the board however if you havent done some thing such as aas i dont think your opinion on aas needs to be stated. If i wanted bs opinions from people who didnt use any thing i would walk down the street and ask some one about the dangerous of steriods.


According the the American Medical Council steroids kill 3 people a year and are number 147 on the A&E problem list.

Vitamins are reporting as causing more problems per year.

And lets not mention drugs, alcohol, tobacco, glue and paint thinners.

Luckily I can buy all of the ^^^ above legally :thumb:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tall where can i find this list?


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

TH&S said:


> According the the American Medical Council steroids kill 3 people a year and are number 147 on the A&E problem list.
> 
> Vitamins are reporting as causing more problems per year.
> 
> ...


I was unaware that a single death had been attributed to steroids?


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Huffing, yah, that is one I am wanting to try..............lol @ paint thinner.........wow.....


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> Tall where can i find this list?


They quoted it in the film Bigger, Stronger Faster and is widely quoted on the web.

It should be available on whatever the american health councils website is - but I can't remember their name. Hacks should know


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Nytol said:


> I was unaware that a single death had been attributed to steroids?


3 apparently 

There seem to be lots of cases where steroids are indicated as a cause of death, but not solely linked.

Where steroids are indicated as a possible cause of death, other deep routed issues appear to be present - such as abuse of pain killers, anti depressant meds, recreation drugs, alcohol etc etc etc


----------



## redman (Feb 2, 2008)

TH&S said:


> 3 apparently
> 
> There seem to be lots of cases where steroids are indicated as a cause of death, but not solely linked.
> 
> Where steroids are indicated as a possible cause of death, other deep routed issues appear to be present - such as abuse of pain killers, anti depressant meds, recreation drugs, alcohol etc etc etc


Naaa. Robsta just took to much tren and went out with a baseball bat and killed 3 people.. shhhh.


----------



## redman (Feb 2, 2008)

Nytol said:


> *I have a more fulfilled life than to read that much*,  , the one with a magazine of the same name :whistling:
> 
> I like the magazine BTW, but the info on the web site, leaves much to be desired.


Leave him alone he is still on Jack and Jill books, I hear he will soon progress to the ladybird books and spot the dog. :lol:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Nytol said:


> I was unaware that a single death had been attributed to steroids?


I have read this thread with great interest.I make no judgement , have no issues nor care as to what choices the individual makes in his/her life.

i am aware however, of deaths and very serious health issues that have been linked to steroid use, (some of whom were friends)Its very difficult to link medical issues thay may develop over many years to a specific cause.Once again, the best example is the smoking/cancer relationship.Was Arnolds/Boyer Coes/Mentzers, cardiac problems aggravated by drug use?, or did they all posess genetic traits that simply became apparent as they aged?My own medical issues,were triggered by alcohol, not abuse, but well within recommended levels, the problems that it caused were also prevalent in my uncle and father. Do we cite the alcohol or my genes as the cause? if an average 50 year old male is suffering from cardio vascular disease, no corellation to taking dinabol 20 years ago(as i did)would be considered.It would be more likely that spikes in bp, due to weight lifting, and/or wild variation in bodyweight, and over consumption of food would be more culpable. :rockon:


----------

