-
-
In addition, a growing number of epidemiologic studies suggest that increased serum levels of IGFs and/or altered levels of their binding proteins are associated with increased risk for developing several malignancies.
I agree that isolating the growth factors to a specific region (aka the hair follicle) would probably be necessary. I don't know if you are aware of the soy isoflavones study that was done in 2007. Basically the participants had regrowth of hair (not amazing) which the researchers believed was due to increased dermal levels of IGF-1 which was observed. This is interesting since soy/soy isoflavones are believed to be good for our health.Comment
-
I know a lot of posters don't want to accept this but potential treatments involving growth factors carry a lot of risks. There's no need to get upset at someone for rightly pointing this out.Comment
-
-
also GF are used in supplements (first time I knew this). they are proteins so I thought they will be broken in the stomach into amino acid and I read that the supplements make sure that it pass your gut and get absorbed. for some reason the supplements increase androgens levels. did not specify which androgen. it was awarded a patent in europe since 1998. So, now we have Growth factors allowed for skin and body building, why not the hair. they will work, Histogen proved so.
this supplement is also available on amazon in the US.Comment
-
I did hear about this recent doubt among cancer and read meat consumption. I still think we cannot definitely say that higher levels of IGF-1 are fine, since there are multiple other studies besides the breast cancer studies (which were poorly performed) that show a link. I agree with the author that IGF-1 plays a vital role in our bodies, but also agree with the philosophy that too much of something is never a good thing. I highlighted some interesting points from a study I saw on ScienceDaily a couple of hours ago. I hope I am not straying too much from the hairloss discussion.
Meat and cheese may be as bad for you as smoking
Date:
March 4, 2014
Source:
University of Southern California
Summary:
A high-protein diet during middle age makes you nearly twice as likely to die and four times more likely to die of cancer, but moderate protein intake is good for you after 65. But how much protein we should eat has long been a controversial topic -- muddled by the popularity of protein-heavy diets such as Paleo and Atkins. Before this study, researchers had never shown a definitive correlation between high protein consumption and mortality risk.
Share This
Email to a friend
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Print this page
More options
Not only is excessive protein consumption linked to a dramatic rise in cancer mortality, but middle-aged people who eat lots of proteins from animal sources -- including meat, milk and cheese -- are also more susceptible to early death in general, according to new research.
Credit: © Lsantilli / Fotolia
[Click to enlarge image]
That chicken wing you're eating could be as deadly as a cigarette. In a new study that tracked a large sample of adults for nearly two decades, researchers have found that eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die of cancer than someone with a low-protein diet -- a mortality risk factor comparable to smoking.
"There's a misconception that because we all eat, understanding nutrition is simple. But the question is not whether a certain diet allows you to do well for three days, but can it help you survive to be 100?" said corresponding author Valter Longo, the Edna M. Jones Professor of Biogerontology at the USC Davis School of Gerontology and director of the USC Longevity Institute.
Not only is excessive protein consumption linked to a dramatic rise in cancer mortality, but middle-aged people who eat lots of proteins from animal sources -- including meat, milk and cheese -- are also more susceptible to early death in general, reveals the study to be published March 4 in Cell Metabolism. Protein-lovers were 74 percent more likely to die of any cause within the study period than their more low-protein counterparts. They were also several times more likely to die of diabetes.
But how much protein we should eat has long been a controversial topic -- muddled by the popularity of protein-heavy diets such as Paleo and Atkins. Before this study, researchers had never shown a definitive correlation between high protein consumption and mortality risk.
Rather than look at adulthood as one monolithic phase of life, as other researchers have done, the latest study considers how biology changes as we age, and how decisions in middle life may play out across the human lifespan.
In other words, what's good for you at one age may be damaging at another. Protein controls the growth hormone IGF-I, which helps our bodies grow but has been linked to cancer susceptibility. Levels of IGF-I drop off dramatically after age 65, leading to potential frailty and muscle loss. The study shows that while high protein intake during middle age is very harmful, it is protective for older adults: those over 65 who ate a moderate- or high-protein diet were less susceptible to disease.
The latest paper draws from Longo's past research on IGF-I, including on an Ecuadorian cohort that seemed to have little cancer or diabetes susceptibility because of a genetic mutation that lowered levels of IGF-I; the members of the cohort were all less than five-feet tall.
"The research shows that a low-protein diet in middle age is useful for preventing cancer and overall mortality, through a process that involves regulating IGF-I and possibly insulin levels," said co-author Eileen Crimmins, the AARP Chair in Gerontology at USC. "However, we also propose that at older ages, it may be important to avoid a low-protein diet to allow the maintenance of healthy weight and protection from frailty."
Crucially, the researchers found that plant-based proteins, such as those from beans, did not seem to have the same mortality effects as animal proteins. Rates of cancer and death also did not seem to be affected by controlling for carbohydrate or fat consumption, suggesting that animal protein is the main culprit.
"The majority of Americans are eating about twice as much proteins as they should, and it seems that the best change would be to lower the daily intake of all proteins but especially animal-derived proteins," Longo said. "But don't get extreme in cutting out protein; you can go from protected to malnourished very quickly."
Longo's findings support recommendations from several leading health agencies to consume about 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight every day in middle age. For example, a 130-pound person should eat about 45-50 grams of protein a day, with preference for those derived from plants such as legumes, Longo explains.
The researchers define a "high-protein" diet as deriving at least 20 percent of calories from protein, including both plant-based and animal-based protein. A "moderate" protein diet includes 10-19 percent of calories from protein, and a "low-protein" diet includes less than 10 percent protein.
Even moderate amounts of protein had detrimental effects during middle age, the researchers found. Across all 6,318 adults over the age of 50 in the study, average protein intake was about 16 percent of total daily calories with about two-thirds from animal protein -- corresponding to data about national protein consumption. The study sample was representative across ethnicity, education and health background.
People who ate a moderate amount of protein were still three times more likely to die of cancer than those who ate a low-protein diet in middle age, the study shows. Overall, even the small change of decreasing protein intake from moderate levels to low levels reduced likelihood of early death by 21 percent.
For a randomly selected smaller portion of the sample - 2,253 people - levels of the growth hormone IGF-I were recorded directly. The results show that for every 10 ng/ml increase in IGF-I, those on a high-protein diet were 9 percent more likely to die from cancer than those on a low-protein diet, in line with past research associating IGF-I levels to cancer risk.
The researchers also extended their findings about high-protein diets and mortality risk, looking at causality in mice and cellular models. In a study of tumor rates and progression among mice, the researchers show lower cancer incidence and 45 percent smaller average tumor size among mice on a low-protein diet than those on a high-protein diet by the end of the two-month experiment.
"Almost everyone is going to have a cancer cell or pre-cancer cell in them at some point. The question is: Does it progress?" Longo said. "Turns out one of the major factors in determining if it does is is protein intake."
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Southern California. The original article was written by Suzanne Wu. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
Morgan E. Levine, Jorge A. Suarez, Sebastian Brandhorst, Priya Balasubramanian, Chia-Wei Cheng, Federica Madia, Luigi Fontana, Mario G. Mirisola, Jaime Guevara-Aguirre, Junxiang Wan, Giuseppe Passarino, Brian K. Kennedy, Min Wei, Pinchas Cohen, Eileen M. Crimmins, Valter D. Longo. Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population. Cell Metabolism, 2014; 19 (3): 407-417 DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.Comment
-
look, I am with you, but it is a RISK; like smoking and many other stuff in our life style that are considered as risky as IGF-1 or even far worse. and all I am saying is that we have growth factors that will help hair loss sufferers and it is being used in many things (supplements, skin wrinkles) but not hair. maybe researchers need to look into them more to try to come up with something. or for god sake, give us a local dht blocker that will kill off all the dht and remove it from our follicles and we will be over. how hard can this be? and I don't want to skip meat to live a hundred years. it is a misery to be over 70 in my opinion. we have been eating meat for thousands of years and we have body builders that will consume as far as 4000 calories of proteins form all sources milk, cheese, eggs and beef. I bet you the researchers are vegetarians(joking). I can get you lots of studies that will show anything can cause cancer as much as their studies that will say something will work for hair loss.guess what they all have in common. any how I am done with this nice debate and as I said it will increase cancer risk but that is it, a RISK I am willing to take just like I took it when I used other stuff and I am still OK.Comment
-
Good and bad news: I managed to find a study on topical growth factors and hairloss. The results of the study were good however the study was performed on female participants. Maybe you can contact the author/s of the study and find out why there was no follow-up to the study, which was performed last year. It looks like they had all of the relevant growth factors in their solution, including fibroblast growth factor and igf. Here is the link:
Comment
-
there are lots of study to show it works. I have seen this one and there is another I posted on the forum titled adipose derived stem cells protein extract; which is growth factor injections. results were amazing. go see yourself. to show that growth factors work for hair is nothing because they do.add to these studies histogen and prp. yes prp works there are lotd of studies but the problem is the price. I personally think if the price is reasonable multiple treatments will work great. like the dht signal,it is continuous, we need continuous signaling of the follicles by those growth factors. to know for sure that growth factors work search vegf, kgf, afgf,bfgf pdgf, egf, IGF (the list is long) and the word hair to find a lot on how each one benefits the hair.finally,I don't know about topicals but Dr.Gardner said that growth factors are not stable so I don't know how will they work in a topical form.Comment
-
Is this study the same as this study or are they different studies:
Comment
Tweet
Comment