Higher IGF-1 and Cancer?

Palermitano · Jul 5, 2016

Trying to jack my IGF-1 (for benefits in the gym and overall) with MK-677, then I read this.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301091417.htm

It concerns me, but then I remember Dr Saya telling me during a consult that my IGF is in range (115, Ref 78-222) but could be higher, however this article states: "Researchers found that men in this study who had IGF-I levels above 100 ng/ml had almost twice the risk of cancer death in the following 18 years than men with lower levels."

Thoughts?

PAUL-E · Jul 5, 2016

Dr Justin Saya MD · Jul 6, 2016

From the study:

"In contrast, recent findings from the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP) suggest an increased 9-yr risk of cancer death for men with extremely low IGF-I levels (<10th percentile)"

My comment - as with all hormones (and resultant byproducts such as IGF-1), too much or too little likely imparts increased risk...BALANCE is key, however for some we do NOT yet have a firm grasp on what that "balance" is.

From the study:

"During the 18-yr follow-up, there were 368 deaths among men, 74 (20%) due to cancer. The most common types were prostate (n = 18), lung (n = 17), and colorectal (n = 12) carcinomas, together comprising nearly two thirds of cancer deaths in men."

My comment - out of 368 deaths, 294 of the deaths (80%) were NOT from cancer. Knowing the "most common causes of death" in this country, it is very likely the majority of the 80% of non-cancer deaths were from heart disease, diabetes complications, and various different "metabolic syndrome" complications. It should be noted that some of the benefits of at least adequate IGF-1/GH levels (maintain/increase lean body mass, decrease fat/adipose tissue = decrease body fat%) are well known to IMPROVE metabolic processes and reduce the risk of "metabolic syndrome" longterm consequences (heart disease).

Also should be noted that the of the 3 top cancer "killers" in the study - 2 of them (prostate and colorectal) are typically easily detected by staying up to date on routine screenings and early detection generally = better outcomes. The other of the 3, lung cancer, has an easily (relatively speaking) modifiable number 1 risk factor of smoking.

Also should be noted that the mean age of patients at initiation of the study was 73 years old, with a range of 51 - 98 years old. Increasing age alone, especially >70yo is a significant risk factor for many cancers including two of the big ones...prostate and colorectal cancer (again typically easily detected by keeping up to date on routine screenings).

BTW, the video above is great as well and I certainly agree with the merits of supporting and maintaining adequate anti-oxidant levels for many reasons.

PAUL-E · Jul 6, 2016

It sure seems like one could certainly influence an outcome of a study just by being selective with the study population alone.

Dr Justin Saya MD · Jul 7, 2016

PAUL-E said:
It sure seems like one could certainly influence an outcome of a study just by being selective with the study population alone.

There is a saying amongst statisticians that you can "beat the data until it submits". In other words, data can be organized, manipulated, included/excluded, etc to the end of influencing the apparent outcomes.

To illustrate this fact in Medical School at UNC, our epidemiology professor had us complete a project where he split the class into two groups and we were given the EXACT same data points. Our task was to organize the data into a scientific study but to support two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT/OPPOSING conclusions...it was remarkable how easy this was for each group (also remarkable how compelling the case/argument was on BOTH sides).