HGH different from steroids

Oh my...

HGH is secreted from the pituitary gland and pushes liver and other cells to secrete and activate IGF-1 (insulin like growth factor 1). This chemical stimulates cartilage and bone growth, and plays a key role in muscle growth and hypertrophy. By using extra HGH by injection, an athlete can train longer and harder with shorter rest intervals to allow recovery.

Historically, HGH was very limited in supply and indicated only for children with growth hormone deficiency. In the illegal body building community, a black market arose that in effect stole the medication from needy children for their less than idealistic use. Now with genetic engineering, the medication is readily available and is being used off label as an anti-aging cure in the older population. On the bright side, indications in the children's population have increased to include short stature and intrauterine growth retardation among others.

The downside to HGH use is the myriad of complications including but not limited to diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, kidney failure, abnormal organ growth, abnormal bone growth and early death. other than these, it's fine.

Another visual side effect is the potential for developing acromegaly. This is usually seen in people with pituitary tumors that secrete growth hormone, but injecting extra can do the same thing.

As with any drug, one has to balance the benefit against the risk, but the benefit of HGH in the athlete is a negative one. The athlete involved with HGH chooses not to spend the time and effort training for the intended result. Rather, the athlete looks for a short cut.

 

Ding, ding, ding. Thanks doc.

Either way, what Gibson did was take a painkiller that allowed him to perform as he would normally.

What Gary Matthews Jr. is alleged to have done made him hit 50 points higher than his career batting average, over 100 points higher than his career OPS and set new career highs in doubles (44, previous high 25 twice including the season before) and homers (19, previous high 17 the season before). Before that his largest HR total was 11 in 2004.

But it doesn't provide a large advantage.

 

How does this guy run that article in both the Post and Slate then?
He's saying it has several marginal affects, but nothing that should discourage people from taking it.
Either he's wrong or Doc is wrong, and I'm not dumb enough to question someone who knows more about something than me.
Is there any cloud over this?
It sounds pretty cut and dry, HGH DOES give users an unfair advantage.
Case closed.

 

JW,

I appreciate the frustration one might have in listening to disparate points of view and having to decide. Please appreciate that my goal in working with the media is to explain medical issues in regular English. My sources are mainstream medicine (myself included) and almost always supported by recent research and literature.

It is true that is older adults who have documented growth hormone deficiency because of a poorly functioning pituitary gland, that the side effect of measured doses that return their blood levels to the normal range, may not have significant complications. There also is no evidence that they build muscle strength or stamina (though there are some early studies that are using testosterone injections at the same time)

That said, the routine, random and indiscriminate use of HGH in the elderly is as of our knowledge base today, not indicated. That also said, there is never an indication to improve athletic performance.

 

Doc --
You had me until the final graf, when we veered into the "It can't be right if it comes from a pill" territory. (AKA, the "short-cut" argument.) Absent demonstrable, empirical harm to the athlete -- and assuming informed consent on the part of everyone involved, I can't see any affirmative moral difference between using a substance and using the weight room, especially since, if the substance is going to have any effect, you have to do both, anyway.

 

But doing both is the short cut, as illustrated in the opening paragraph of Doc's explanation. There are those who only use one, the weight room, but since they don't use HGH, they have longer recovery times and cannot work out as long as those who do.

Hence using HGH provides an advantage, since you can go longer and need less recovery time if you use it than someone who doesn't.

 

So what?
If the substance is harmless, and readily available, the "advantage" is also. What's the problem? If you choose not to use it, you choose to compete on an uneven playing field. Again, assuming the substance is harmless and generally available, why would you do that?

 

I refer my learned friend to the previous post.

 

I would like Doc to show me the data on all of this because, every time I see a doctor on TV talking about HGH, it's always about what "might" or "could" happen.

 

As I've said many times on these threads, I believe there will come a time when many of these substances are better understood and, used appropriately and under supervision, will aid athletes' training and recovery. If there's a substance that can help a professional athlete to heal an injury faster, surely that will be considered a good thing. Athletes want to perform, their employers want them to perform and fans want them to perform.

 

http://www.jbaassoc.demon.co.uk/watch/

 

Doesn't matter. As soon as we find out that 90 percent of the NFL is on HGH, the football-loving public, government and (yes) media will pooh-pooh HGH as a harmless drug on the level of cortisone, etc.