After all this hoopla (clemens, etc etc), this study (which is actually a review of all the other studies) suggests that current data shows that HGH doesnt actually help with sports performance).
" Growth hormone is reported to be extensively used for illicit enhancement of athletic performance (5, 8, 75), both for its anabolic and endurance effects. However, our review of the limited published literature suggests that while growth hormone may alter body composition, it has minimal effect on key athletic performance outcomes and may, in fact, be associated with worsened exercise capacity. Our conclusions are consistent with the findings reported in the recent Mitchell report on illegal drug use in Major League Baseball, which noted the lack of evidence supporting growth hormone use and enhancement of athletic performance (10)."
I find this interesting given all the controversy over people taking it- it may just be one giant placebo affect.
HGH is better for recovery…it won’t make a bad athlete great but will allow the good to perform more consistently and at a higher level due to the change in body composition, better recovery, etc.
I think it is hard to dispute that a more rested/recovered athlete will not perform better.
Andrew
“will allow the good to perform more consistently and at a higher level due to the change in body composition, better recovery, etc.”
Actually the study says the exact opposite- that the body composition is mostly liquid, and it actually makes most athletes perform at the same level or LOWER
For real- go read the article (discussion towards the bottom)
Where did you get the data that it helps with recovery? This study suggests the exact opposite.
I find this interesting given all the controversy over people taking it- it may just be one giant placebo affect.
Pros and their doping docs, soigneurs, friends or whoever advises them, use what they “feel” works. I don’t see any reason why they would be any less susceptable to the same psychological phenomenons that lead to the rest of us to pouring money down the drain on this or that substance.
HgH is popular in no small part because it is undetectable.
Any Ex Phys text clearly points to protein, carb and fat metabolism as one of the ‘benefits’ of HGH.
After exercise the only way we get better/faster/stronger is in the repair of the damaged tissues so they can perform at a later point.
GH is also highest during REM cycles of sleep and towards the morning hours, some point to this as part of the reason for ‘morning wood’ in men.
Sports Illustrated had an interesting article about doping - not just in sports but by the general population of the USA.
Anyway, the article contained a story about how the original study that stated that anabolic steroids did not help performance was sabatoged by an assistant who instructed the doping subjects to use non-effective doses and who then took the remaining steroids for his own use and re-sale.
If you are questioning the effect of recovery on performance then I would say that no athlete can perform at their best without proper recovery.
Andrew
have you ever read the Outside Magazine article “Drug Test”. Story of a your basic AG cyclist who decided to try them all for himself. You should read it. The guy gives the low-down on his performance increases, the like and dislikes of roids, EPO and HGH. I personally, tend to believe his assessment of PED’s, rather than that of some “study” with nameless faces, places and athletes.
PS. Ability to recover was a HUGE benefit of the PED’s he experienced. Link to the article below.
Same thing that I have heard as others have replied … HGH and synthetic testosterone are recovery aids, not endurance “enhancers.” EPO and blood doping do that.
Sports Illustrated had an interesting article about doping - not just in sports but by the general population of the USA.
Anyway, the article contained a story about how the original study that stated that anabolic steroids did not help performance was sabatoged by an assistant who instructed the doping subjects to use non-effective doses and who then took the remaining steroids for his own use and re-sale.
David K
That’s genius!!! Why didn’t I think of that!
The Australian Institute of Sport published a study to the same effect several years ago. The takeaway: HGH might risk your face looking like Sly Stallone (apparently he’s suffering early stage gigantism in his nose, jaw etc from the HGH he munches like M & Ms), but it offers no appreciable athletic benefit.
The athletic benefit of testosterone, and related substances, is mostly about recovery and somewhat about enhancing ability to build lean muscle. It won’t do anything for a sedentary 100 lb weakling, nor assist if only used, say, the day before competition, but it makes it easier to recover and benefit from workouts. (That’s my layman’s understanding, anyway.)
During my PhD years at OU I befriended a 66 year old man that looked and worked out as if he was 42. I learned that he had been taking HGH for 20 plus years (got his supply from Mexico). He looked great and appeared to use to enable him to work out efficiently which added to his life.
Recalling his face, he did appear to have subtle indications of gigantism.
I noticed that in Rambo 4 which was basically a promotion for HGH and .50 caliber weapons. Maybe the latter was unintentional and he used small arms very little in that movie because his fingers had grown too big to fit within the trigger guards.
HGH is better for recovery…it won’t make a bad athlete great but will allow the good to perform more consistently and at a higher level due to the change in body composition, better recovery, etc.
I think it is hard to dispute that a more rested/recovered athlete will not perform better.
Andrew
Then how come they don’t in the studies?