Growth hormone therapy does not increase the risk of cancer

Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Arnold
    ADMINISTRATOR

    The Admin's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    18,037

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    480
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7,623
    Thanked in
    4,033 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Growth hormone therapy does not increase the risk of cancer

    Growth hormone therapy does not increase the risk of cancer
    Growth hormone therapy does not increase, and even seems to lower the risk of cancer. This is evident from a meta-study published by Chinese endocrinologists at Zhejiang University College of Medicine in the Open Journal of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases.





    Study
    The researchers tracked 10 previously published studies that followed adults receiving growth hormone for several years. The subjects were diagnosed with adult growth hormone deficiency. So the studies may not say much about pharmacological athletes using growth hormone.

    In the table below you will find more information about the studies used. Click on it for a larger version.





    Results
    In the studies, the subjects who received growth hormone did not develop cancer more often than the subjects in the control groups. Growth hormone even reduced the risk of cancer.









    The researchers found evidence of bias. This means that it seems that studies with less attractive results have not been published. However, the bias appeared to be modest, and the researchers suspect that the inclusion of the potentially missing studies in their meta-study would not really alter its outcome.Conclusion
    "Our study corroborates evidence from previous studies showing that growth hormone replacement therapy in adult growth hormone deficiency patients would not increase the risk of cancer; instead, it might be even decrease cancer risk", write the researchers.

    "The results suggested that growth hormone replacement therapy in adult growth hormone deficiency patients was safe."
    Source:
    Open Journal of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases 2017 January;7(9):173-89.

  2. #2
    Gym Derelict


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    14,664

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,897
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,949
    Thanked in
    1,791 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Wow! Just simply wow!

    I need to read this when I have time.

    I have always read GH proliferates cancer cell growth.

  3. #3
    Senior Member

    malfeasance's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7,317

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    274
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,580
    Thanked in
    1,125 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by Skip Foursome View Post
    Wow! Just simply wow!

    I need to read this when I have time.

    I have always read GH proliferates cancer cell growth.
    This was for GH replacement therapy for those who are low, not bodybuilders running high doses. Just pointing that out.

  4. #4
    Gym Derelict


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    14,664

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,897
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,949
    Thanked in
    1,791 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by malfeasance View Post
    This was for GH replacement therapy for those who are low, not bodybuilders running high doses. Just pointing that out.
    Yes I get that and have not seen the dosage used in this study.

    But, once you hit 60 your chances of getting cancer increase by a lot and still not sure if therapeutic doses would be okay.

    I thought it was fact that GH increases cancer cell production, especially at this age.

  5. #5
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    4,998

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,995
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,322
    Thanked in
    1,562 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Lance Armstrong- that dude took GH after he had stage 4 testicular cancer that was metastatic and had gotten to his lungs (coughed up blood and chunks before he finally went to doc). He took GH AFTER he supposedly beat the cancer.
    Quite a risk in my book. Most research does indeed indicate that GH will proliferate most cell types including cancer. This paper is 2017. I havent read it yet but I wonder if there has been any more research on this more recently.
    Quote Originally Posted by Skip Foursome View Post
    Yes I get that and have not seen the dosage used in this study.

    But, once you hit 60 your chances of getting cancer increase by a lot and still not sure if therapeutic doses would be okay.

    I thought it was fact that GH increases cancer cell production, especially at this age.

  6. #6
    Gym Derelict


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    14,664

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,897
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,949
    Thanked in
    1,791 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by lifter6973 View Post
    Lance Armstrong- that dude took GH after he had stage 4 testicular cancer that was metastatic and had gotten to his lungs (coughed up blood and chunks before he finally went to doc). He took GH AFTER he supposedly beat the cancer.
    Quite a risk in my book. Most research does indeed indicate that GH will proliferate most cell types including cancer. This paper is 2017. I havent read it yet but I wonder if there has been any more research on this more recently.
    I don't know what to believe anymore as too much conflicting information.

    I'm not going over 10ius a week from now on. No reason to chance it

  7. #7
    Senior Member

    GarlicChicken's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    10,928

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,321
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,712
    Thanked in
    2,534 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by Skip Foursome View Post
    I don't know what to believe anymore as too much conflicting information.

    I'm not going over 10ius a week from now on. No reason to chance it
    I think this is the right answer as we age. Especially past 50, if you care at all about health it's just not worth pushing it

  8. #8
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    4,998

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,995
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,322
    Thanked in
    1,562 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    I agree with that - when I hit 50 I figure I will be done or almost done with any PEDs and if not then just a true TRT dose of test.
    The GH is tricky too because of what it can do to blood sugar. I sure as fuck don't want to induce diabetes.
    Quote Originally Posted by GarlicChicken View Post
    I think this is the right answer as we age. Especially past 50, if you care at all about health it's just not worth pushing it
    Last edited by lifter6973; 07-31-2020 at 09:26 PM.

  9. #9
    Gym Derelict


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    14,664

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,897
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,949
    Thanked in
    1,791 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by GarlicChicken View Post
    I think this is the right answer as we age. Especially past 50, if you care at all about health it's just not worth pushing it
    Now that I think about it and a friend reminded me it is high IGF-1 levels that is the key.

    Under IGF-1 of 300 and you will be much safer compared to 500. IGF-1 of 500 is exponentially higher risk of cancer compared 300 or less.

    I'm happy when at 225-280. I get really good results in that range.

  10. #10
    Senior Member

    malfeasance's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7,317

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    274
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,580
    Thanked in
    1,125 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by Skip Foursome View Post
    Now that I think about it and a friend reminded me it is high IGF-1 levels that is the key.

    Under IGF-1 of 300 and you will be much safer compared to 500. IGF-1 of 500 is exponentially higher risk of cancer compared 300 or less.

    I'm happy when at 225-280. I get really good results in that range.
    Really tough to get 500 or better with what is on the market judging by folks' IGF-1 lab results posted here over the years.

  11. #11
    Senior Member

    malfeasance's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7,317

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    274
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,580
    Thanked in
    1,125 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by Skip Foursome View Post
    I'm happy when at 225-280. I get really good results in that range.
    Already well into my fifties here and 226 with no hgh (labs here) - http://www.anabolicsteroidforums.com...fore-50/page11
    So if I am going to spend all that $$$, I better get better than 225-280!

  12. #12
    Senior Member

    malfeasance's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7,317

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    274
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,580
    Thanked in
    1,125 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by Skip Foursome View Post
    Yes I get that and have not seen the dosage used in this study.

    But, once you hit 60 your chances of getting cancer increase by a lot and still not sure if therapeutic doses would be okay.

    I thought it was fact that GH increases cancer cell production, especially at this age.
    It is not just one study, but a meta-analysis. They looked at "all" the studies that fit a certain set of criteria and then reported the overall results, which appear to be that keeping IGF-1 in the normal reference range for a GH deficient person actually protects against cancer.

    They cited to a study showing they contended showed that high IGF-1 is linked to cancer, but when I read it (the link is in FN 44) I could not find any reference to that conclusion. It appeared to be only a review of the various metabolic pathways through which IGF-1 could affect cancer growth.

    I looked at a few of the studies cited, and one showed IGF-1 in the mid-200s and in the mid 100s. I could not really make sense of the study, however, and I don't have time to figure it out. There are about 50 footnotes, though, in the meta-analysis, if you really want to roll your sleeves up and dig in. The info you are seeking about doses is probably in there somewhere. Most of the studies cited alter the dose based on IGF-1 response (raise the dose to get it in range if too low, lower the dose to get it in range if too high). In other words, they did not use just a certain iu or mg per kg of bodyweight, but took an active approach with reaching a certain IGF-1 score.

    That is all I could figure out for now.

Similar Threads

  1. Growth Hormone Replacement Therapy
    By BombDotCom in forum Testosterone Replacement Therapy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-11-2019, 12:37 AM
  2. How to Increase Human Growth Hormone
    By The Admin in forum Supplements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-19-2019, 03:06 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-14-2013, 01:12 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-31-2013, 04:43 PM
  5. Many sunscreens increase skin cancer risk
    By The Admin in forum Muscle Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-31-2013, 04:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright© 2012-2020 Anabolic Steroid Discussion Forums