Insulin-like growth factor I and insulin and their abuse in sport

The Other Face of Insulin—Overdose and Its Effects

Insulin is the most effective glycemic-lowering drug, and for people suffering from type 1 diabetes it is a life-saving drug. Its self-dosing by patients may be associated with a higher risk of overdose, both accidental and deliberate. Insulin-induced hypoglycemia causes up to 100,000 emergency department calls per year. Cases of suicide attempts using insulin have been described in the literature since its introduction into therapy, and one of the important factors in their occurrence is the very fact of chronic disease. Up to 90% of patients who go to toxicology wards overdose insulin consciously. Patients with diabetes are burdened with a 2–3 times higher risk of developing depression compared to the general population. For this reason, it is necessary to develop an effective system for detecting a predisposition to overdose, including the assessment of the first symptoms of depression in patients with diabetes. A key role is played by a risk-conscious therapeutic team, as well as education. Further post-mortem testing is also needed for material collection and storage, as well as standardization of analytical methods and interpretation of results, which would allow for more effective detection and analysis of intentional overdose—both by the patient and for criminal purposes.

Growth hormone doping in sports: a critical review of use and detection strategies

GH is believed to be widely employed in sports as a performance-enhancing substance. Its use in athletic competition is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency, and athletes are required to submit to testing for GH exposure. Detection of GH doping is challenging for several reasons including identity/similarity of exogenous to endogenous GH, short half-life, complex and fluctuating secretory dynamics of GH, and a very low urinary excretion rate. The detection test currently in use (GH isoform test) exploits the difference between recombinant GH (pure 22K-GH) and the heterogeneous nature of endogenous GH (several isoforms). Its main limitation is the short window of opportunity for detection (~12-24 h after the last GH dose). A second test to be implemented soon (the biomarker test) is based on stimulation of IGF-I and collagen III synthesis by GH. It has a longer window of opportunity (1-2 wk) but is less specific and presents a variety of technical challenges. GH doping in a larger sense also includes doping with GH secretagogues and IGF-I and its analogs. The scientific evidence for the ergogenicity of GH is weak, a fact that is not widely appreciated in athletic circles or by the general public. Also insufficiently appreciated is the risk of serious health consequences associated with high-dose, prolonged GH use. This review discusses the GH biology relevant to GH doping; the virtues and limitations of detection tests in blood, urine, and saliva; secretagogue efficacy; IGF-I doping; and information about the effectiveness of GH as a performance-enhancing agent.

Hormonal response to lipid and carbohydrate meals during the acute postprandial period

Background

Optimizing the hormonal environment during the postprandial period in favor of increased anabolism is of interest to many active individuals. Data are conflicting regarding the acute hormonal response to high fat and high carbohydrate feedings. Moreover, to our knowledge, no studies have compared the acute hormonal response to ingestion of lipid and carbohydrate meals of different size.

Methods

We compared the hormonal response to lipid and carbohydrate meals of different caloric content during the acute postprandial period. Nine healthy men (22 ± 2 years) consumed in a random order, cross-over design one of four meals/beverages during the morning hours in a rested and fasted state: dextrose at 75 g (300 kcals), dextrose at 150 g (600 kcals), lipid at 33 g (300 kcals), lipid at 66 g (600 kcals). Blood samples were collected Pre meal, and at 0.5 hr, 1 hr, 2 hr, and 3 hr post meal. Samples were assayed for testosterone, cortisol, and insulin using ELISA techniques. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each variable, and a 4 × 5 ANOVA was used to further analyze data.

Results

A meal × time effect (p = 0.0003) was noted for insulin, with values highest for the dextrose meals at the 0.5 hr and 1 hr times, and relatively unaffected by the lipid meals. No interaction (p = 0.98) or meal (p = 0.39) effect was noted for testosterone, nor was an interaction (p = 0.99) or meal (p = 0.65) effect noted for cortisol. However, a time effect was noted for both testosterone (p = 0.04) and cortisol (p < 0.0001), with values decreasing during the postprandial period. An AUC effect was noted for insulin (p = 0.001), with values higher for the dextrose meals compared to the lipid meals (p < 0.05). No AUC effect was noted for testosterone (p = 0.85) or cortisol (p = 0.84).

Conclusions

These data indicate that 1) little difference is noted in serum testosterone or cortisol during the acute postprandial period when healthy men consume lipid and dextrose meals of different size; 2) Both testosterone and cortisol experience a drop during the acute postprandial period, which is similar to what is expected based on the normal diurnal variation--feeding with lipid or dextrose meals does not appear to alter this pattern; 3) dextrose meals of either 75 g or 150 g result in a significant increase in serum insulin, in particular at 0.5 hr and 1 hr post-ingestion; 4) lipid meals have little impact on serum insulin.