From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Nov 25 2002 - 15:57:10 MST
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> Hal Finney wrote:
>
> > Supposedly animal tests showed that it actually *decreased* lifespan?
I don't know either. But as the recent examples of transgenic mice
with mutant and non-mutant p53 show the whole cancer & aging story
in *animals* may be very difficult to extend to humans. And we know
all about the problems of looking at telomere length in different species.
> ### HGH is bad, bad, bad. Persons with too much HGH (acromegalics) live
> shorter, persons with too little HGH, some dwarfs, at least the ones whose
> HGH deficiency is not caused by a tumor, live normal lifespans. HGH acts
> through insulin-like growth factor II, and it promotes aging.
Rafal's opinion is likely to be correct when you are talking about clinical
HGH excess or shortage -- but in the lifespan business one is generally
talking very sub-clinical (HGH, Estrogen, DHEA, melatonin, etc.) differences.
HGH is likely to be used to promote muscle strength which in turn combats
frailty that is encountered in some elderly. If the reduction in accidents
due to frailty offsets its potential for increasing cancer or accelerating
aging (which might be the case acting through IGF-2 as Rafal mentions)
then HGH might make sense. Now you might be able to get the same (or better
effects) through weight training. So I'd generally frown on HGH unless the
individual can't get to a gym and has a great drug prescription benefit plan.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:23 MST