If there is a known cancer, would the resulting higher Igf-1

File: frogman.jpg (2MB, 6000x5606px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 6000x5606px

>tfw no lgf

>>8490146
There's a compromise. Same goes with calories. Nobody really knows, and you should be able to just kill the cancer instead of doing stupid balancing acts to stay alive a month or two longer.

>>8490162
but is it true that with a lower igf-1 level, the cancer will grow at a slower pace thus more of a chance that the immune system can kill the cancer cells at a faster rate than the cancer cells can multiply?

>>8490167
Standing still all day and starving yourself isn't going to work though.

There probably is some optimal amount of exercise, but it's not quantifiable.

Besides if you enter chemo as a lanklet or muscle-less fatass you're going to die a lot faster, you need to keep some muscle mass.

>>8490172
so building muscle mass through exercise is a worthy tradeoff for increased igf-1 levels even already having developed cancer?

would you say that maintaining a plant based diet focused on minimizing production of igf-1 is the most efficient way to make the immune system the most effective?

>>8490206
NO YOU FAGGOT I'M JUST SAYING IT

FUCKING

DEPENTS
E
P
E
N
T
S

Cancer is extremely heterogeneous. Many cancers don't even respond to igf-1. Others produce their own igf-1 in an autocrine fashion and don't give a fuck about systemic manipulation. Igf-1 can even be anticancer in some models due to its ability to enhance immunosurveillance and some DNA damage checkpoints.