Post up your Natty IGF-1 Level

That’s more like -1, which is within “normal” “-2 to +2” range.

IGF is lower than 75-85% of peers.
My 83 (see first post of thread) is a Z score of -1.0 . . . a negative 2 must be very low, indeed.

I always found two standard deviations on either side to be a very wide range to be considered "normal." If that were IQ, we would be looking at folks with a 70 IQ (2 SD below) and 130 IQ (2 SD above). Only a little over 2% of the population has above or below those levels of intelligence. Nobody would call either person with 70 or 130 IQ "normal" in intelligence. You probably would not want to hire a 70 IQ individual to do anything more than very simple tasks. If you take 100 persons at random, only 2 are likely to be at this IQ or below. If you went to a school with 1000 students, the poorest performing 20 or so, including special education, is who we are talking about at that level or below.

I am not sure I would ever want my IGF-1 to be at the special ed level.
 
My 83 (see first post of thread) is a Z score of -1.0 . . . a negative 2 must be very low, indeed.

I always found two standard deviations on either side to be a very wide range to be considered "normal." If that were IQ, we would be looking at folks with a 70 IQ (2 SD below) and 130 IQ (2 SD above). Only a little over 2% of the population has above or below those levels of intelligence. Nobody would call either person with 70 or 130 IQ "normal" in intelligence. You probably would not want to hire a 70 IQ individual to do anything more than very simple tasks. If you take 100 persons at random, only 2 are likely to be at this IQ or below. If you went to a school with 1000 students, the poorest performing 20 or so, including special education, is who we are talking about at that level or below.

I am not sure I would ever want my IGF-1 to be at the special ed level.
It reminds of TRT “normal”.

“Yea you’re in the bottom 1%, but that’s in range no test for you”.

And just like TRT, a minority of specialists recognize even if not technically below the normal range, if there are symptoms it’s worth treating.

It’s called:

Adult Growth Hormone Insufficiency (AGHI) or

Functional / Relative Growth Hormone Deficiency

Diagnosed by a Z score below -0.5 and one or
more:
  • Fatigue, low energy
  • Increased fat mass (especially visceral fat)
  • Reduced muscle mass and strength
  • Poor exercise recovery
  • Low mood or cognitive “fog”
  • Reduced bone density
  • Low-normal IGF-1 for age
  • “Normal” GH stimulation test but blunted response
They will prescribe GH to treat this but insurance doesn’t recognize it. However, by going through speciality compounding pharmacies (instead of brand name rHGH) I’ve heard it’s less then $200 for a months supply.
 
It reminds of TRT “normal”.

“Yea you’re in the bottom 1%, but that’s in range no test for you”.

And just like TRT, a minority of specialists recognize even if not technically below the normal range, if there are symptoms it’s worth treating.

It’s called:

Adult Growth Hormone Insufficiency (AGHI) or

Functional / Relative Growth Hormone Deficiency

Diagnosed by a Z score below -0.5 and one or
more:
  • Fatigue, low energy
  • Increased fat mass (especially visceral fat)
  • Reduced muscle mass and strength
  • Poor exercise recovery
  • Low mood or cognitive “fog”
  • Reduced bone density
  • Low-normal IGF-1 for age
  • “Normal” GH stimulation test but blunted response
They will prescribe GH to treat this but insurance doesn’t recognize it. However, by going through speciality compounding pharmacies (instead of brand name rHGH) I’ve heard it’s less then $200 for a months supply.
So I have a -1 Z Score and all of the following symptoms you listed. Would it be worth trying GH to see if symptoms improve?
 
Back
Top