• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
  • .org
  • Districts
  • Media
  • SupportUs
  • Collaborate
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Join

Photo

Higher testosterone = longer life

Started by nowayout , Mar 01 2010 07:13 PM

  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#31 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439 ₮
  • Location:Earth

Posted 10 March 2010 - 06:38 PM

Therefore, where is your data for men over 52 using HGH or Testosterone and their risk for cancer?


From http://www.biomedexp...ham_Morgentaler
  • like x 1

#32 VidX

  • Guest
  • 865 posts
  • 137 ₮

Posted 10 March 2010 - 06:57 PM

viveutvitas> Great job. I'll probably sacrifice some day to reading most of that as it's baffling that there's basically no real conclusion what exactly causes prostate cancer (antigen.. ok, why does it raises? How can we escape this?)..
No prostate cancer in my family line, though you never know.
Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#33 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439 ₮
  • Location:Earth

Posted 10 March 2010 - 07:44 PM

The relationship between testosterone and prostate cancer actually may be inverse.

2000: Hoffman M A; DeWolf W C; Morgentaler A
Is low serum free testosterone a marker for high grade prostate cancer?
The Journal of urology 2000;163(3):824-7.
PURPOSE: The association of free and total testosterone with prostate cancer is incompletely understood. We investigated the relationship of serum free and total testosterone to the clinical and pathological characteristics of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 117 consecutive patients treated by 1 physician and diagnosed with prostate cancer at our medical center between 1994 and 1997. Low free and total testosterone levels were defined as 1.5 or less and 300 ng./dl., respectively. RESULTS: After evaluating all 117 patients we noted no correlation of free and total testosterone with prostate specific antigen, patient age, prostatic volume, percent of positive biopsies, biopsy Gleason score or clinical stage. However, in patients with low versus normal free testosterone there were an increased mean percent of biopsies that showed cancer (43% versus 22%, p = 0.013) and an increased incidence of a biopsy Gleason score of 8 or greater (7 of 64 versus 0 of 48, p = 0.025). Of the 117 patients 57 underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. In those with low versus normal free testosterone an increased mean percent of biopsies demonstrated cancer (47% versus 28%, p = 0.018). Pathological evaluation revealed stage pT2ab, pT2c, pT3 and pT4 disease, respectively, in 31%, 64%, 8% and 0% of patients with low and in 40%, 40.6%, 12.5% and 6.2% in those with normal free testosterone (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our study patients with prostate cancer and low free testosterone had more extensive disease. In addition, all men with a biopsy Gleason score of 8 or greater had low serum free testosterone. This finding suggests that low serum free testosterone may be a marker for more aggressive disease.


Edited by viveutvivas, 10 March 2010 - 07:45 PM.

  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439 ₮
  • Location:Earth

Posted 10 March 2010 - 07:58 PM

Also this

2006: Morgentaler Abraham
Testosterone and prostate cancer: an historical perspective on a modern myth.
European urology 2006;50(5):935-9.
OBJECTIVES: To review the historical origins and current evidence for the belief that testosterone (T) causes prostate cancer (pCA) growth. METHODS: Review of the historical literature regarding T administration and pCA, as well as more recent studies investigating the relationship of T and pCA. RESULTS: In 1941 Huggins and Hodges reported that marked reductions in T by castration or estrogen treatment caused metastatic pCA to regress, and administration of exogenous T caused pCA to grow. Remarkably, this latter conclusion was based on results from only one patient. Multiple subsequent reports revealed no pCA progression with T administration, and some men even experienced subjective improvement, such as resolution of bone pain. More recent data have shown no apparent increase in pCA rates in clinical trials of T supplementation in normal men or men at increased risk for pCA, no relationship of pCA risk with serum T levels in multiple longitudinal studies, and no reduced risk of pCA in men with low T. The apparent paradox in which castration causes pCA to regress yet higher T fails to cause pCA to grow is resolved by a saturation model, in which maximal stimulation of pCA is reached at relatively low levels of T. CONCLUSIONS: This historical perspective reveals that there is not now-nor has there ever been-a scientific basis for the belief that T causes pCA to grow. Discarding this modern myth will allow exploration of alternative hypotheses regarding the relationship of T and pCA that may be clinically and scientifically rewarding.


  • like x 1

#35 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424 ₮
  • Location:Austria, Vienna
  • ✔

Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:15 PM

I think the important point was hGH. As of now there is no sane rationale to use hGH if you plan to extend your life. 

I'll assume you have read a little about male HRT. So could you tell me if you see the parallels to female HRT and if not, why not? What is different? Which data makes a better case for T than there was for female HRT? (from the titles I don't see how several of the papers relate to the topic, could you elaborate? what non-prostate data exists?)

#36 VidX

  • Guest
  • 865 posts
  • 137 ₮

Posted 11 March 2010 - 03:22 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the first thing that comes to my mind is that females get breast cancer even in a young age (that's not rare) while their own estrogens are still flowing, and prostate cancer is almost exceptionaly older age cancer.. That kinda makes you think (in relation to female HRT relevancy)..
Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#37 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439 ₮
  • Location:Earth

Posted 12 March 2010 - 06:33 PM

I'll assume you have read a little about male HRT. So could you tell me if you see the parallels to female HRT and if not, why not? What is different?


I guess testosterone, as opposed to estrogen. Big difference. :|o

Lately it appears that it is excess estrogen, not testosterone, that is the main culprit also in prostate cancer.

I am not sure that you are correct in implying that female HRT, when done correctly, is necessarily risky.

Edited by viveutvivas, 12 March 2010 - 06:35 PM.

#38 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424 ₮
  • Location:Austria, Vienna
  • ✔

Posted 14 March 2010 - 01:33 PM

I am not sure that you are correct in implying that female HRT, when done correctly, is necessarily risky.

Neither am I nor is the medical literature (from what limited evidence I have read), but I think your risk assessment is way off in this case. The evidence of benefit for female HRT is weaker and more limited than the evidence of harm. Sure, as always the drug & dose they used may have been responsible, but we are not in the business of playing russian roulette with our health.

I have not seen any evidence that actively pursuing T replacement is necessary or safe enough to be worth the trouble if you are fairly asymptomatic. Anyone else can feel free to play guinea pig, but we should know better.
Messing with most hormones is pretty foolish as long as we don't have data from randomised controlled trials. Especially hormones that are strongly linked to premature death in animal experiments like growth hormone, thyroid hormones and apparently testosterone.

Which data justifies your pro-HRT bias? Data other than epidemiology? Anything else than prostate cancer data, all-cancer, CVD and all-cause mortality?

I'd like to be proven wrong.

Edited by kismet, 14 March 2010 - 01:39 PM.

  • like x 1

#39 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,058 posts
  • 2,000 ₮
  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • ✔

Posted 14 March 2010 - 01:41 PM

I think the important point was hGH. As of now there is no sane rationale to use hGH if you plan to extend your life. 


There are tens of thousands of people around the world using hGH, some for a decade or two. Do we have any data on their lifespans?

#40 VidX

  • Guest
  • 865 posts
  • 137 ₮

Posted 14 March 2010 - 03:49 PM

From older fellas I know that low endogenous test is no fun at all.. Actually some young guys get it too and it may ruin ones life pretty seriously. So if we talk about quality of life - test is probably a way to go after certain age if you are healthy and ready to take some possible risk (if any) in favour of keeping your body "younger" (and this is probably one of the few interventions to actually do something about the overal decline).
And actually we ARE a guinea pigs in this business, and there's no hope we will get a decent long term study in this area to answer all the questions anytime soon, luckily there are a lot of random ofiicial and unofiicial data to analyze and make some conclusions for everyone who's interested, so..

#41 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11 ₮

Posted 14 March 2010 - 05:59 PM

"BACKGROUND: Human growth hormone (GH) is widely used as an antiaging therapy, although its use for this purpose has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and its distribution as an antiaging agent is illegal in the United States. PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of GH therapy in the healthy elderly. DATA SOURCES: The authors searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for English-language studies published through 21 November 2005 by using such terms as growth hormone and aging. STUDY SELECTION: The authors included randomized, controlled trials that compared GH therapy with no GH therapy or GH and lifestyle interventions (exercise with or without diet) with lifestyle interventions alone. Included trials provided GH for 2 weeks or more to community-dwelling participants with a mean age of 50 years or more and a body mass index of 35 kg/m2 or less. The authors excluded studies that evaluated GH as treatment for a specific illness. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently reviewed articles and abstracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: 31 articles describing 18 unique study populations met the inclusion criteria. A total of 220 participants who received GH (107 person-years) completed their respective studies. Study participants were elderly (mean age, 69 years [SD, 6]) and overweight (mean body mass index, 28 kg/m2 [SD, 2]). Initial daily GH dose (mean, 14 microg per kg of body weight [SD, 7]) and treatment duration (mean, 27 weeks [SD, 16]) varied. In participants treated with GH compared with those not treated with GH, overall fat mass decreased (change in fat mass, -2.1 kg [95% CI, -2.8 to -1.35] and overall lean body mass increased (change in lean body mass, 2.1 kg [CI, 1.3 to 2.9]) (P < 0.001), and their weight did not change significantly (change in weight, 0.1 kg [CI, -0.7 to 0.8]; P = 0.87). Total cholesterol levels decreased (change in cholesterol, -0.29 mmol/L [-11.21 mg/dL]; P = 0.006), although not significantly after adjustment for body composition changes. Other outcomes, including bone density and other serum lipid levels, did not change. Persons treated with GH were significantly more likely to experience soft tissue edema, arthralgias, carpal tunnel syndrome, and gynecomastia and were somewhat more likely to experience the onset of diabetes mellitus and impaired fasting glucose. LIMITATIONS: Some important outcomes were infrequently or heterogeneously measured and could not be synthesized. Most included studies had small sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS: The literature published on randomized, controlled trials evaluating GH therapy in the healthy elderly is limited but suggests that it is associated with small changes in body composition and increased rates of adverse events. On the basis of this evidence, GH cannot be recommended as an antiaging therapy."
http://www.annals.or.../2/104.abstract

That was actually much worse results from these short-term, average of half a year, studies than I had expected. I would have thought that the short-term results would be overwhelmingly positive. The really suspected adverse effects like cancer and many other possible diseases of enlarging and proliferating tissues (amyloidosis, benign prostate hyperplasia, and so on) will, if they exist, only appear much later.

Edited by Blue, 14 March 2010 - 06:01 PM.

  • like x 1

#42 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414 ₮
  • Location:NW

Posted 14 March 2010 - 06:43 PM

Neither am I nor is the medical literature (from what limited evidence I have read), but I think your risk assessment is way off in this case. The evidence of benefit for female HRT is weaker and more limited than the evidence of harm. Sure, as always the drug & dose they used may have been responsible, but we are not in the business of playing russian roulette with our health.



i may be wrong, but i think the problem w/ HRT is the total risk from all types of cancer. perhaps prostate/breast cancer is not as effected (or even prevented by) HRT, but other cancer risks (lung, etc.) are probably a serious concern.

before putting a gold seal of approval on testosterone, people should keep in mind that hormones circulate everywhere. the prostate is just one part of the body. if you are a former smoker, or have been exposed to certain situations (excess amounts of sunlight, industrial chemicals/wastes) -- you could be exacerbating an underlying problem.

#43 VidX

  • Guest
  • 865 posts
  • 137 ₮

Posted 14 March 2010 - 06:52 PM

Hormones yes, though they bind to just the receptors they are created to bind. So unless ther are androgen receptors in lungs (for ex.) you shouldn't worry too much.. Unless there are some other pathways activated, but it's a mere speculation at this moment.

Edited by VidX, 14 March 2010 - 06:53 PM.

#44 warner

  • Member
  • 178 posts
  • 93 ₮
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 15 March 2010 - 03:42 PM

T has been my latest research obsession. :-D
Back in January I updated the attached 2-page doc summarizing my findings.

Supplemental T (as a gel) is only "drug" I'm currently taking, and I didn't start taking it before thoroughly checking out all the other possible causes of the myriad of symptoms I had acquired as part of "andropause". The T quickly reversed most of these symptoms, and now it is just a matter of getting/maintaining a proper dosage.

My inclination has been to minimize dosage, although it is difficult (with gels or creams) to know how much is being absorbed because the T (from topical application) is under-measured by blood serum levels, while saliva levels, in comparison, go extremely high. This forces one to rely on symptoms to manage dose, which is less than desirable.

The under-measurement of topically-applied hormones by blood serum tests can be demonstrated by several studies and examples, which I can relate if others are interested. The politics of the controversy currently has most MDs lined up defending their serum testing on one side, with the saliva testers (ex. ZRT) on the other claiming that a whole lot more hormone is getting into one's body than is indicated by the serum tests. After researching this, I side with the saliva testers contention, and am hesitant, for example, to follow the dosing suggestions by Androgel makers, who based their opinion on serum testing (who claim, for example, that only 10% of T in gel is absorbed, so you have to apply 10x as much to skin to get serum levels up - i.e., 50-100 mg on skin to get 5-10 mg absorbed!).

So... T is great (if you've got too little), but dosage is still controversial if using a gel/cream.

Attached Files


Edited by warner, 15 March 2010 - 03:48 PM.

#45 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66 ₮
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 March 2010 - 04:30 PM

I know I am a bit on the wrong side here but people already mentioned it before me.

About Estrogen HRT, is it really all that risky?

I remember reading about girls who can't produce estrogen or something and their parents were worried that they want to put them off the pill because of the "breast cancer risk" but isn't the cancer risk just the same as the one all of us have while we produce estrogen?
I also remember reading how the higher levels of estrogen mean highest breast cancer risk and how it's "good" to start the cycle later in years (relatively) and finish earlier because you have less risk. But there are a lot of women that start early and finish later and didn't get breast cancer and isn't it healthy to have those hormones which protect our heart, brain and lipid levels so much and probably help with our natural longevity compared to men (which will hopefully not matter due to artificial longevity we all here hope to have for infinite more time) :-D

I know quite a bit of women at age 60+ having now bone problems, messed up lipids and triglycerides and hot flushes, cold flushes. I had a problem for few months which caused me extra low estrogen and I had hot flushes ad cold flushes, not fun! :(
  • like x 1

#46 warner

  • Member
  • 178 posts
  • 93 ₮
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:46 PM

I know I am a bit on the wrong side here but people already mentioned it before me.

About Estrogen HRT, is it really all that risky?

I remember reading about girls who can't produce estrogen or something and their parents were worried that they want to put them off the pill because of the "breast cancer risk" but isn't the cancer risk just the same as the one all of us have while we produce estrogen?
I also remember reading how the higher levels of estrogen mean highest breast cancer risk and how it's "good" to start the cycle later in years (relatively) and finish earlier because you have less risk. But there are a lot of women that start early and finish later and didn't get breast cancer and isn't it healthy to have those hormones which protect our heart, brain and lipid levels so much and probably help with our natural longevity compared to men (which will hopefully not matter due to artificial longevity we all here hope to have for infinite more time) :-D

I know quite a bit of women at age 60+ having now bone problems, messed up lipids and triglycerides and hot flushes, cold flushes. I had a problem for few months which caused me extra low estrogen and I had hot flushes ad cold flushes, not fun! :(


As part of T research, I also looked into female HRT (estrogen and progesterone). This paper from 2008 presents a large study of French women using various forms of HRT, including bioidentical hormones (the French have been smarter about this than the US doctors/pharm industry). The winner seems to be use of bioidentical estrogen + progesterone, which produced no increase in breask cancer risk. Estrogen alone has shown mixed results (as described in paper), although I would not be concerned with low-dose estradiol (E2) ERT for osteoporosis prevention (much smarter than fosomax et al.).

Unequal risks for breast cancer associated with different hormone replacement therapies: results from the E3N cohort study

Some other things I've gathered:
- have babies when young (better for both mother and child, although, of course, one may have reasons for delaying that are not health related)
- don't use birth control pills (esp. not w/ non-bioidentical hormones!)
- don't wander blindly into perimenopause, or accept hormone loss as "natural" (i.e., supplement to maintain normal levels of E and P - or at least "low normal" levels)

As mentioned in my previous post, if using creams or gels, there is a problem with determining dosage since the existing methods of measurement are not in agreement, and serum numbers are likely way too low. An example of this is with the "Wiley Protocol" for female bioidentical HRT. Wiley (a non-degreed-scientist, non-doctor) developed this protocol using E2 and P creams, but based on serum measurements, leading to over-dosing of many women with E2 and P (i.e., you have to overdose with the creams to see the serum numbers reach "normal" values). In particular, women on the WP are being given huge doses of P, as evidenced by many of them reporting the appearance of "linea nigra", a dark line down your stomach area due to very high P levels (despite normal-looking serum numbers), usually seen only during pregnancy.

HRT remains a tricky business!

Edited by warner, 15 March 2010 - 07:25 PM.

#47 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66 ₮
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 March 2010 - 10:20 PM

Well I still it will take at least 30 or more years until I need to be bothered about HRT no? by then hopefully something will change (immortality be here hopefully ^^)

#48 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,058 posts
  • 2,000 ₮
  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • ✔

Posted 05 July 2010 - 05:50 PM

More evidence that hormones are important for extending life (in mice anyway - in this study of ovary transplantation). Seems like there is a natural mainstream bias against hormone supplementation. I wonder if this will change anytime soon, considering recent studies.

#49 VidX

  • Guest
  • 865 posts
  • 137 ₮

Posted 05 July 2010 - 10:26 PM

More evidence that hormones are important for extending life (in mice anyway - in this study of ovary transplantation). Seems like there is a natural mainstream bias against hormone supplementation. I wonder if this will change anytime soon, considering recent studies.


Damn.. That's interesting and impressive on many levels. A study with some higher mammal. would be even more interesting. At least for evaluation of short term results/behavior changes..

#50 VidX

  • Guest
  • 865 posts
  • 137 ₮

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:05 AM

Another thought - if evolutionary organism is beneficial as long as it's capable to reproduce - what if we find a way to extend the reproductive function indefinetly? Like these turtles who doesn't show signs of aging - the females not just doesn't become less fertile, vice versa - fertility seems to increase with advanced age (kind of - if you managed to stay alive for so long - your genes are even more worth reproducing).
Something related with brain aging I guess..

#51 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33 ₮
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 15 July 2010 - 06:27 PM

Just like Estrogen and women!

You know, I always wonder why they don't want to give women estrogen replacement once production stops.
They say Estrogen increases breast cancer risk, but it's the same risk we always have when we are in our natural estrogen producing years! Some are even happy to say "It is good for women to get to that stage EARLIER", ignoring all the bone thinning and heart problems, mood, hot flashes and all else which comes with it.. what!!


Not exactly, the longer a woman is exposed to estrogen the greater the risk of developing cancer. It seems that women who take longer to reach menopause have higher incidence of breast cancer (according to a sexuality of psychology textbook I have).

#52 pres

  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 6 ₮

Posted 16 July 2010 - 09:38 PM

Just wondering, does anyone around here supplement IGF-1?


I don't, but I'm very tall (over 6ft8) and have high IGF-1 without taking supplements. Very interested in possible consequences of this and ways to counter the negative ones.

Edited by pres, 16 July 2010 - 09:39 PM.

#53 tornpie

  • Guest
  • 56 posts
  • 5 ₮
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 13 December 2010 - 01:26 AM

Just wondering, does anyone around here supplement IGF-1?


I've supplemented with IGF-1 des 1,3. It's IGF-1 with the last 3 amino acids removed. It needs to be injected and doses are 10-20 mcg per muscle group worked. It's incredibly potent since it's 1000% more anabolic than plain IGF-1. The half-life is measured in minutes but what goes in under an hour is pure magic. Basically I was able to have an entire day of weightlifting recovery in a hypoglycemic hour. I had to dump a cup or so of sucrose in with my whey to keep a decent amount of glucose in my blood to fuel the protein synthesis. Anyways, the protocol for IGF-1 cycle is usually under 40 days with at least 20 off due to receptor sensitivity issues. Anabolic-androgenic steroids have different profiles in what they do with IGF-1 mechanisms. For instance, trenbolone upregulates IGF-1 receptors (while annihilating cortisol receptors) in muscle cells, while nandrolone (and testosterone as well) increases IGF-1 outright.

While IGF-1 is viewed as a bad guy in life extension, I do not believe it's that straightforward. IGF-1 and insulin are related growth factors and their receptors on cells move interrelatedly. I do think that insulin is by far the biggest culprit in the aging related problems. I think that people seem to lose sight of the fact that the body's durability is a very important factor in survivability and IGF-1 is enormously important in this. Low IGF-1 probably means low lean muscle mass and poor bone strength. I believe that the low IGF-1 caused in liver failure type diseases results in wasting and bone density loss.

I guess I am a little biased against calorie restriction and being below ideal bodyweight. My bones are nearly indestructible. I played football, wrestled heavyweight and never broke a bone. Walked away from car accidents without a seat belt and no serious injuries. The two breakages I did have were due to falling down a flight of stairs while drunk and wrestling with a guy ten years younger than me doing a face plant into furniture. The first I knocked out my two front teeth and shattered the bone holding them in and in the second I broke my nose.

Beyond the durability issues, there is also the fact that they have shown in wasting situations such as HIV or cancer that preventing muscle wasting increased lifespan. I've also read that centenarians were found to have levels of IGF-1 of people 30 years younger.

My personal observations with supraphysiological doses of testosterone, IGF-1, and other AAS and performance enhancing chemicals is that my stress levels are greatly reduced, my skin clears up, I look 10 times healthier, I increase lean muscle at the expense of adipose tissue, and so on. Obviously, one can't use these substances year round and they do carry side effects and risks that one must monitor. For me, they are a part of my life extension strategy. By life I mean not necessarily length, but high quality life extension. My great grandfather died from a tractor flipping over on him at 89 still going strong at farming. Things would have obviously been different if he were on hormones and he could have bench pressed his ass out of that life non-extension situation lol.

#54 carlh49

  • Guest
  • 15 posts
  • -10 ₮
  • Location:United States

Posted 27 January 2011 - 02:56 AM

I've been supplementing with testosterone for 8 years (I'm 48 yrs old). I'm pretty sure it's one of the many key contributors to my outstanding health, fitness, and well-being.

I've said this many times: I predict within ten years, practically all enlightened men over 40 will supplement with testosterone.



I'am 49 and used only the supplements like maca...I have an appointment next week...But not sure what to ask for?

Could you enlighted me? Should I ask for Hgh injectable or what type of steroid?
What type do you use?

I ask my Arthritis doctor for Hgh to stimulate the healing process...But he said "I don't believe in such things"---
But he offered a $41,000.00 operation...he had the insurence company OK the procedure.,14 months prior,.
He would of pocketed about $35,000.00 worth of profit....I think he's a Quack---and never going back.
  • like x 1

#55 capsun

  • Guest
  • 65 posts
  • 32 ₮
  • Location:Arizona

Posted 27 January 2011 - 05:18 AM

I've also read that centenarians were found to have levels of IGF-1 of people 30 years younger.


In some studies. This is because centenarians have typically low IGF-1 levels for most of their youth with a slower, more steady decline in IGF-1 than the normal aging population. Comparatively, a normal aging population has very high IGF-1 when young and very low IGF-1 when older. At some point, this slow decline in centenarians and fast decline in normal aging results in centenarians having higher IGF-1 than other people their own age or even younger.

Edited by capsun, 27 January 2011 - 05:19 AM.

#56 VidX

  • Guest
  • 865 posts
  • 137 ₮

Posted 27 January 2011 - 02:20 PM

I ask my Arthritis doctor for Hgh to stimulate the healing process...But he said "I don't believe in such things"---
But he offered a $41,000.00 operation...he had the insurence company OK the procedure.,14 months prior,.
He would of pocketed about $35,000.00 worth of profit....I think he's a Quack---and never going back.


Not sure what exact method you want to improve by adding GH, but it may worsen your arthritis, AT LEAST for some time, due to the accumulation of water. GH is known to give the "morning stiffness" in your joints, esp. at higher doses. Not like it's a damaging or a dangerous side, just a discomfortable..

#57 Young Paul

  • Guest
  • 81 posts
  • 14 ₮
  • Location:spain
  • NO

Posted 30 January 2011 - 01:48 AM

just do some weight resistence anaerobic exercise and increase your own Test and Hgh, this is surely much safer.
there's also a rumour that broad beans (fava) increase our testosterone levels, also dopamine and hgh.

#58 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439 ₮
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 January 2011 - 04:44 PM

About Estrogen HRT, is it really all that risky?


I think there is a lot of unwarranted hysteria about this. First, the way the statistics is normally presented, as a percentage increase, makes the risk look big, but if you phrase it as follows:

There is one extra case of breast cancer per 1,300 women on HRT per year.

...it puts the risk in a very different perspective. Also, you have to weigh the benefit to 1,300 women against the possible harm to one (which can be additionally managed with careful screening often). Becasue of unwarranted hysteria, many of those 1,299 women who could have greatly benefited last year without harm were denied HRT.

Also, doctors should use common sense in determining the individual risk to a particular patient. Some families have no cancer, for example. The risk from HRT to an individual from such a family would very likely be much lower.

Edited by viveutvivas, 30 January 2011 - 04:50 PM.

#59 Zaire

  • Guest
  • 14 posts
  • 5 ₮
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 25 April 2012 - 09:28 AM

Therefore, where is your data for men over 52 using HGH or Testosterone and their risk for cancer?


From http://www.biomedexp...ham_Morgentaler




The page you're trying to reach doesn't exist anymore.




Can you find these links again?
Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#60 antproofcase

  • Guest
  • 14 posts
  • 57 ₮
  • Location:Madison, WI

Posted 04 June 2012 - 12:00 PM

Just like Estrogen and women!

You know, I always wonder why they don't want to give women estrogen replacement once production stops.
They say Estrogen increases breast cancer risk, but it's the same risk we always have when we are in our natural estrogen producing years! Some are even happy to say "It is good for women to get to that stage EARLIER", ignoring all the bone thinning and heart problems, mood, hot flashes and all else which comes with it.. what!!


I think the "c" word may be the big scare, but as big a scare is the fear of increased chances for blood clots. Oddly, these statistics (especially as they relate to strokes) increase as women get older (at least, now they do!). But, I do wonder if they started women earlier, well pre menopause, to augment the decrease, and before clotting became a statistical problem, if that would be less an issue? To chime into what you are asking, will it always be a peri- or post-menopausal reaction?

From a layman's perspective, for men and women, it seems the biggest problem is treating the symptoms/diseases of aging, and not aging itself, head-on.
Back to Aging Theories


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. LONGECITY
  2. → Science & Health
  3. → AgingResearch
  4. → Aging Theories
  5. site rules