HGH doesn't improve atheltic ability

amazingemmet

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23677433/

I'm gonna have to disagree with that study based on real world evidence from all the atheletes using.

Hanley

Of course it doesn't. Just like those studies on anabolic steroids 20-30 years ago "proved" they didn't increase athletic performance either. Another case of science dis-proving what everyone with half a clue already knows works.

Mickk

I would actually agree, it is very different from steroids. The studies are accurate, it will put on muscle and lean you out. It will therefore benefit sports where muscle mass is needed but for athletic ability it will do nothing which is what they are saying. Also it wont make you stronger which seems strange as it will increase muscle mass but this is also true.

Its because it is the only hormone in the world that will grow new muscle fibre bundles, rather than steroids which just make the ones you have stronger therefore giving you potential to be alot stronger but it is not the hgh that makes you stronger, it will be the training you do in the years after taking it.

arybvtcw0eolkf

That report just tells half the story, MickK fills in some of the gaps and here's more.

HGH used alone is almost worthless for the athlete. For the 'casual' user (ie not under medical supervision) its main benefits are increased lean muscle, clear/younger looking complexion, and as a result its used by a lot of American middle aged actors and musicans. Its strongly rumoured that 'Madge' (you know who that is right ) is a user. Some of the give away signs with her is her young complexion, her lean muscle mass and a trait she share's with Arnie (don't laugh) - big feet and a gapped grin!.

HGH has been shown to massively increase bone density and growth in some user's.

But enough of that, people here are more concerned with athletic proformance or body building. Well HGH is VERY expensive - and massively faked. Its got very little (if any) benefits to the athlete/bodybuilder (its not considered a power lifters choice of drug) without stacking it with insulin and a high testosterone count (Testo Depot/Sustanon/ Dball or Abombs).

So yea, there you go. Used alone its an expensive waste of time for the athlete.

Degsy

Mairt wrote: »

That report just tells half the story, MickK fills in some of the gaps and here's more.

HGH used alone is almost worthless for the athlete. For the 'casual' user (ie not under medical supervision) its main benefits are increased lean muscle, clear/younger looking complexion, and as a result its used by a lot of American middle aged actors and musicans. Its strongly rumoured that 'Madge' (you know who that is right ) is a user. Some of the give away signs with her is her young complexion, her lean muscle mass and a trait she share's with Arnie (don't laugh) - big feet and a gapped grin!.

HGH has been shown to massively increase bone density and growth in some user's.

But enough of that, people here are more concerned with athletic proformance or body building. Well HGH is VERY expensive - and massively faked. Its got very little (if any) benefits to the athlete/bodybuilder (its not considered a power lifters choice of drug) without stacking it with insulin and a high testosterone count (Testo Depot/Sustanon/ Dball or Abombs).

So yea, there you go. Used alone its an expensive waste of time for the athlete.

I presume its dangerous too..?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Degsy wrote: »

I presume its dangerous too..?

Well too much of a good thing is a bad thing!.

Like I said, its massively faked. Pre-1980's the only HGH was taken from the pertuity gland of dead babies and culitivated from there. This practice has mostly stopped in the West, but the danger is that its rumoured that faked HGH coming from Russia and a famous Chinese counterfeiter is cultivated from the pertuity gland's of cadvar's so you've got concern's about cross infection from those sources.

A few year's ago it was also very popular in the gay community as, like I said, it gave clearer complexions and was suppose to reduce the aging process and even help with HIV+ gays whose hospital drugs regime didn't include HGH!.

crotalus667

Degsy wrote: »

I presume its dangerous too..?

It's a big no no for any one that has had cancer

Steve.Pseudonym

Hanley wrote: »

Of course it doesn't. Just like those studies on anabolic steroids 20-30 years ago "proved" they didn't increase athletic performance either. Another case of science dis-proving what everyone with half a clue already knows works.

The scientists note their analysis included few studies that measured performance. The tests also probably don’t reflect the dose and frequency practiced by athletes illegally using the hormone.
...

Dr. Alan Rogol of the University of Virginia and the Indiana University School of Medicine, said the work was a good review but had to rely on inadequate research.

“There are just tons of things we don’t know,” said Rogol.

Nobody's saying that it proves or disproves anything, it's just a single study. Blame the media for making the claim that it does.

Edit: And it's a meta-study at that, so really it doesn't shed new light on anything, it's just an analysis of previous studies.

amazingemmet

Mairt wrote: »

a trait she share's with Arnie (don't laugh) - big feet and a gapped grin!.

Hmm gonna have to disagree with you on the gapped grin bit she's had that for years well before "wellness" clinics were around. Not sure on the big feet bit.

t-ha

Apparently it improves other age related issues like short-sightedness, slow healing times etc. so appart from the dangers of speeding up cancer, it sounds like lot of fun for older guys.

Degsy

t-ha wrote: »

Apparently it improves other age related issues like short-sightedness, slow healing times etc. so appart from the dangers of speeding up cancer, it sounds like lot of fun for older guys.

And the risk of acromegaly too i'd imagine?

t-ha

Degsy wrote: »

And the risk of acromegaly too i'd imagine?

Well, there's a bit of a difference between taking massive doses & an old dude giving himself a younger man's GH levels.

Degsy

t-ha wrote: »

Well, there's a bit of a difference between taking massive doses & an old dude giving himself a younger man's GH levels.

Trying to reverse the aging process,eh?The holy grail of the rich and gullible!

t-ha

Degsy wrote: »

Trying to reverse the aging process,eh?The holy grail of the rich and gullible!

Not yet, but I'll see how I feel when I'm 40 or 50.

Rocky's latest outing was enough evidence for me!

Degsy

t-ha wrote: »

Not yet, but I'll see how I feel when I'm 40 or 50.

Rocky's latest outing was enough evidence for me!

Hmm,the auld face-peel and botox might have had more to do with his appearance though!

t-ha

Degsy wrote: »

Hmm,the auld face-peel and botox might have had more to do with his appearance though!

yeah but his face was a mess - it's the ripped intercostals at 60 that interest me!

hardtrainer

As has been said already, this was a meta-study, nothing new really being stated.
HGH used to be taken, not just from the pituitary glands of dead babies, but from corpses of all ages. HGH is extremely potent and part of the reason for the expense was that there was no synthetic form. Genentech Inc. changed all that in the 80s when they began production of HGH from transgenes in cell lines. Since then there has been another form of HGH for sale, this time from a modified version of the transgene. It's been shown to be even more potent that the original Genentech product. Regardless, a lot of money was spent on the research and development of these products, hence HGH is still very expensive as the companies try to recoup their investment.

HGH has many benefits and can be safely taken, under medical supervision, particularly for those with muscle wasting disorders or those long term chronically ill patients with significant wasting of tissues.

For healthy individuals, the most immediately obvious effects are in the complexion and renewed appearance of the skin. The muscle building effects are really over played a lot, though recovery times are reduced. Of course there are dangers too, enlarged heart, rapid growth of cancers or other tumours and general messing of the physiological balance in the body. I know 3 people who have taken HGH, one for vanity, two out of necessity. The effects on the skin are incredible. One of the guys, who needed HGH for medical reasons, has developed complications as a result of it and has a long road ahead still. The other two are fine, at least as far as they know. I think for a 4 week course, the guy who was taking it out of pure vanity, paid close to €1.5K. I can't say as I've noticed any real gains in size or muscle strength, but he certainly changed composition somewhat and looks a lot younger than he used to look.

thats just my two cents.

jdivision

Surely the study group should have been of older people because presumably their hormone counts would be lower? I wouldn't trust this study/research review at all