Comments on: Missing the Boat on HGH, Again

By: Ron

Ron — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:32:57 +0000

The conclusion in the first linked article says that there was no effect on power output, but that was for the combined male and female subjects.

Looking at Figure 1, for the females it was 3 out of 5, 3 out of 5 and 2 out of 4 showing power increases. Women on GH showed no increased effect compared to placebo.

But if you look at just the males you see 1 out of 5 in the placebo group had a power increase. You see 2 out of 5 in the low GH dose group with a power increase. And you see 4 out of 5 in the high GH dose group having a power increase.

Even in this tiny sample size study that looks like a trend of increased performance to me.

So stating “there is no evidence that the drug (HGH) improves performance” is incorrect. Your linked article did show increased performance by males.

By: JC

JC — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:57:54 +0000

These are the same methods used by medical researchers to examine the properties of most drugs. Studies that show ergogenic effects of anabolic steroids and amphetamines us similar methods.

You are free not to believe the academic consensus. I am just reporting what that consensus is.

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:00:26 +0000

You didn’t answer my question.

Do you think that a 5 person study over 30 days gives you diffintive proof of something? Strong evidence?

If the experts are using these tiny sample size tests, then can what they say be considered at all?

By: JC

JC — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:57:24 +0000

From talking with colleagues who do similar research I have learned this is an example of a standard clinical study: 30 subjects, one month, different doses. When you are using human subjects it is very difficult to get more than this approved. Also, most of these studies are done outside the U.S., because they would never be approved in the U.S.

Overall, the consensus of experts who work in this field is that growth hormone does not improve athletic performance. Until I see some evidence otherwise, I will continue to believe that growth hormone is an ergogenic aid.

By: Ron

Ron — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:49:53 +0000

Do you really think a study done for 30 days on 5 men on a high HGH dose is a large enough sample size?

Would you look at the stats of 5 baseball players for one month to determine a worthwhile conclusion of their on the field performance?

By: JC

JC — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:55:42 +0000

The conclusion reached by the researchers involved in the clinical trial was that any observed differences (positive and negative) were not large enough to indicate a difference in performance. There findings fit with what other researchers have found.

By: Ron

Ron — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:21:54 +0000

JC, Why do you say there is NO evidence of of increased performance for a person on HGH when your first linked research in the Dec 10th article does show increased performance?

Look at Figure 1. Only one of the 5 men on the placebo had increased performance. But 4 of the 5 on the high HGH dose had increased performance.

By: lisa g

lisa g — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:23:01 +0000

grayson,

so HGH is a hormone. big deal.

please give SOME evidence that HGH helps with healing and growth – i mean, links to scientific evidence. not just a whole lot of pompous sportswriters/bloggers if you don’t mind.

and i mean evidence IN NORMAL HEALTHY YOUNG ATHLETIC MALES!!! not aids patients, not old folks, not people with terrible diseases.

and by the way, estrogen is a hormone and i sure as heck don’t hear THAT pimped for clearly helping with healing and growth.

By: Greyson

Greyson — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:33:25 +0000

It seems really naive and hasty to jump to these sorts of conclusions based only on the preliminary evidence that you have provided… HGH, like all hormones, changes the composition and function of the body, and clearly helps in healing and growth. In that respect I worry most about its use in high school and college programs, not to mention the baseball academies in the Caribbean and elsewhere, and I welcome MLB’s finally stepping up to the plate on this issue.

Dr. James Andrews is a respectable physician and isn’t going to sacrifice everything he’s worked for by throwing a cheap/illegal fix at top flight athletes when other avenues are available (and probably more profitable for him.)

By: JC

JC — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:41:10 +0000

Question: But doesnt it help in the healing process? Or is this a myth too?

With steroids, the anabolic effect that makes muscles stronger is the same process the leads to faster healing. This same anabolic effect does not occur with HGH. There has been no study that shows any improved recovery from using growth hormone.

My guess is that this myth stems from a hook used by drug dealers. Guys who are injured are vulnerable, and it is a good pitch. “Hey man, I’ve got something undetectable that can get you back on your game quicker.” If it really did enhance Tommy John surgery recovery, then why isn’t Dr. James Andrews writing these prescriptions? He doesn’t appear in the Mitchell Report at all.