Comments on: More Reasons Not to Worry about HGH in Baseball http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball/ Economic Thinking about Baseball Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:16:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Justin http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball/comment-page-1/#comment-71836 Justin Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:17:47 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball/#comment-71836 I agree with your column and the comments from other readers, too, but I think it needs to be mentioned that HGH and steroids are both largely used for injury recovery and/or stamina over long periods of time and not explicitly as magical drugs that can make anyone into an All-Star (see: Jeremy Giambi). It wasn't a coincidence that most everyone who has been named in the performance-enhancing drug stories over the years is over 30 years old and was over 30 when they reportedly purchased the drugs. Guys who were borderline big leaguers go for steroids or HGH to keep up with younger, more talented players and to ensure they keep getting paid; guys like Bonds or Clemens want to keep playing but struggle with health issues and so turn to steroids or HGH to help recovery time and whatnot. I agree with your column and the comments from other readers, too, but I think it needs to be mentioned that HGH and steroids are both largely used for injury recovery and/or stamina over long periods of time and not explicitly as magical drugs that can make anyone into an All-Star (see: Jeremy Giambi).

It wasn’t a coincidence that most everyone who has been named in the performance-enhancing drug stories over the years is over 30 years old and was over 30 when they reportedly purchased the drugs.

Guys who were borderline big leaguers go for steroids or HGH to keep up with younger, more talented players and to ensure they keep getting paid; guys like Bonds or Clemens want to keep playing but struggle with health issues and so turn to steroids or HGH to help recovery time and whatnot.

]]> By: RJB http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball/comment-page-1/#comment-71341 RJB Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:23:12 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball/#comment-71341 Well, I think there are a couple more points to think about. A lot of athletes take much higher doses of HGH than what the doctors are "ethically" allowed to test. Also, most athletes tend to use it combination with steroids. Steroids help increase muscular performance and the HGH helps enlarge supporting tissues like ligaments and bones. This allows the body to withstand the increased force created by larger muscles. It seems that the HGH is also key in recovery so that athletes can train longer and harder than normal. All this would lead to increased performance on the playing field. Well, I think there are a couple more points to think about. A lot of athletes take much higher doses of HGH than what the doctors are “ethically” allowed to test. Also, most athletes tend to use it combination with steroids. Steroids help increase muscular performance and the HGH helps enlarge supporting tissues like ligaments and bones. This allows the body to withstand the increased force created by larger muscles. It seems that the HGH is also key in recovery so that athletes can train longer and harder than normal. All this would lead to increased performance on the playing field.

]]> By: dfc http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball/comment-page-1/#comment-71265 dfc Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:34:46 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball/#comment-71265 I agree that a 4-week study doesn't seem terribly likely to reach a strong conclusion. And that's why I agree that we should stop just banning such things in sports. Let the athletes take whatever they want, just require a doctor's supervision. That way, fans can make their own judgments about the players, and there will be a lot more information available about the health effects. As a side note, while this isn't the first I've heard about HGH having no effect on grown people, is there any kind of study about effects on people still growing? Say, high school athletes? I agree that a 4-week study doesn’t seem terribly likely to reach a strong conclusion. And that’s why I agree that we should stop just banning such things in sports. Let the athletes take whatever they want, just require a doctor’s supervision. That way, fans can make their own judgments about the players, and there will be a lot more information available about the health effects.

As a side note, while this isn’t the first I’ve heard about HGH having no effect on grown people, is there any kind of study about effects on people still growing? Say, high school athletes?

]]> By: JEC http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball/comment-page-1/#comment-71262 JEC Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:50:30 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball/#comment-71262 I don't disagree with your conclusions about the media's rush to judgment. But a four-week study of the lack of effects of HGH is hardly a conclusive one. Creatine doesn't "work" in four weeks (little to no noticeable changes). Does that mean it doesn't work? Exercise in general doesn't do much in just four weeks. Many medications can take months to work, such as ones for HIV or over-active thyroids. Stating that there are no athletic benefits to long-term consumption of HGH (which is what these players are doing - players like Paul Byrd are reported to have been getting it prescribed for YEARS) based on a short-term study is as mis-represented as the articles touting its benefit which you rail against. I don’t disagree with your conclusions about the media’s rush to judgment. But a four-week study of the lack of effects of HGH is hardly a conclusive one. Creatine doesn’t “work” in four weeks (little to no noticeable changes). Does that mean it doesn’t work? Exercise in general doesn’t do much in just four weeks. Many medications can take months to work, such as ones for HIV or over-active thyroids. Stating that there are no athletic benefits to long-term consumption of HGH (which is what these players are doing – players like Paul Byrd are reported to have been getting it prescribed for YEARS) based on a short-term study is as mis-represented as the articles touting its benefit which you rail against.

]]>