kevin, you do know that "muscle mass" and "muscle strength" are two entirely different things, correct? Or do you just not care?

wouldn't the recovery aspect alone be extremely beneficial?

A number of studies show that human growth hormone does not increase muscle strength in healthy subjects or well-trained athletes.

-Mitchell Report, p. 9

It is modern day snake oil.

It is a latter day monkey glands myth.

All of the money being spent just to develop a test for this, could be better spent on far more important medical research.

The perfect analogy may be bat-corking -- you may consider it an intent to cheat, if you like, but there is nothing to indicate that it actually works.

Witch hunt is what this is. Those of you not around like Repoz for the Salem witch trials of 1692, behold. At least they were persecuting sleazy witches, Bonds and Clemens are some of our "heros".

They're NOT two entirely different things. They are two directly-related things. But I'm sure you don't care.

Increasing muscle mass does not necessarily increase muscle strength. HGH has been shown to increase muscle mass. It has not been shown to increase muscle strength.

youse guys is missing the point entirely--it don't matter what HGH does or doesn't do

the new scientific principle is

1. Barry Bonds used it

2. ergo, it's evil

I await over 4,000 retractions articles...starting with a writer named Lupica.

Why bring Mike Lupica into it? If it can be said with ironclad scientific certainty that somebody hasn't taken human growth hormone, it's Grumbelina.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5881

DL: A hot topic is Human Growth Hormone (HGH), which is reportedly replacing anabolic steroids in a lot of locker rooms. How effective is HGH?

AA: Conventional wisdom says that everyone is on HGH now because there’s no test to detect it, but what they don’t realize is that there’s a night and day difference between HGH and anabolic-androgenic steroids. Studies have shown that HGH supplementation will increase muscle mass; but there is little, if any, evidence of strength gains in these studies. In other words, when HGH supplementation has been studied in normal males, there are reports of small gains in muscle mass, but there seems to be no evidence from a randomized, double-blind study that you gain strength from HGH alone. If there is any effect of HGH, it is likely to be a small effect, especially compared to how anabolic steroids improve strength and baseball performance.

There's also http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball/, and the other articles over at sabernomics.

There's tons of other information out there. Try researching sometime. Muscle's getting bigger does not necessarily mean they're stronger.

There's also no proof that the THEORY of evolution accurately happened according to our accounts. I guess we should all just discredit it until 100% proven otherwise. (/sarcasm)

Do you know how muscles actually work? Just asking.

Apparently you don't.

Yes, Kevin. They taught you in the army.

Do you even know what research means?

It means doing a database search and sort of reading an abstract. I learned that from Kevin.

Since you won't go to the links I've provided, I guess I'll have to tell you that the first quote is from:

Andy Andres teaches a class called "Sabermetrics: The Objective Analysis of Baseball" at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts. Andres is also an Assistant Professor of Natural Science at Boston University and has taught a seminar in Exercise Physiology and the Physiology of Human Athletic Performance at Harvard for over 15 years. A data analyst for Ron Shandler at BaseballHQ, Andres has a PhD in Nutritional Biochemistry and Physiology.

Who I'd say definitely has some expertise.

And sabernomics quotes multiple sources from multiple places.

It is entirely possible to increase muscle mass without significantly increasing strength. You can do it right now at your computer - Just take a moderately heavy object, maybe 3-5 pounds, and do bicep curls with it for the next 2 minutes. If you feel your bicep, it should feel noticeably bigger than when you started, and you won't be any stronger.

Of course, this doesn't have a lot to do with HGH, but it's been a favorite trick of high school boys about to go on dates for years.

I just hope I'm there when David and Kevin suddenly lunge into each other's arms, like Hawkeye Pierce and Hot Lips Houlihan did.

You want some data on the effects of hGH and muscle development. So where do you reference? Journal of physiology? Joural of Biochemistry? Steroid chemistry?

Dr. Suess.

Green Balls and Roids were my favourite.

I am Sam, juice I do, tell me why my balls are through?

Best Regards

John

Here's a trial that does show increased power output by males on HGH for one month.

Link

Look at Fig 1.

One of 5 males in the pacebo group had a power increase over 30 days.
Two of 5 in the low HGH group.

FOUR out of 5 in the high HGH dose group.

The results did show no increase for women. And by combining the two groups (men and women) the report stated that there was no effect, when clearly there was one for men.

It is a latter day monkey glands myth

I am unfamiliar with this myth, but want (and dread) to learn more.

The results did show no increase for women. And by combining the two groups (men and women) the report stated that there was no effect, when clearly there was one for men.

If by "clearly" you mean "Of a very small sample size of 5, 3 people had no increased strength, and 2 did."

But, that's usually not my definition of clearly.

Kevin, if you were a tenth as smart as you thought you were, you'd have won a few Nobel Prizes by now.

The results did show no increase for women. And by combining the two groups (men and women) the report stated that there was no effect, when clearly there was one for men.

Did you read the abstract of that study? Because the researchers conclude:

"Administration of supraphysiological recombinant human GH during a period of 4 wk does not improve power output or oxygen uptake."

Kevin, if you were a tenth as smart as you thought you were, you'd have won a few Nobel Prizes by now.

My wife says the same thing about me ... except you have to replace "won a few Nobel Prizes" with "paper trained."

Best Regards

John

I think they really buried the lede in this story:

While HGH carries dangerous potential side effects like diabetes, a "cro-magnum" like (square-faced) appearance and joint degeneration, the usage of B12 has virtualy no risk, the panelists said.

I know this isn't conclusive, but if true, what's the big deal over PEDs? Even those HGH side effects seem kinda tame compared to some of the other things we put in our bodies.

And I imagine as technology improves, PEDs will become safer and safer. Will that cause them to be accepted by the public or will there continue to be this venom and gnashing of teeth?

And I imagine as technology improves, PEDs will become safer and safer. Will that cause them to be accepted by the public or will there continue to be this venom and gnashing of teeth?

Soon, they'll be in the water like fluoride.

Soon, they'll be in the water like fluoride.

The most monstrously conceived communist plot in history...

speaking as a NEXpert (no ####--I published the first paper on the molecular mechanism of action of GH exactly 30 years ago--full disclosure: the mechanism we proposed turned out to be completely and utterly WRONG, but that's beside the point)

this review is a good one, talking about the GH/IGF1 "axis"

(unfortunately, most of you don't have full text access)

the authors say "the pattern of GH abuse by athletes may differ considerably from controlled clinical trials."

"pattern of abuse" means, we don't know how the (forget) much these guys are jabbing into themselves compared to the 40micrograms/kg/day used in the trials

I'm not sure it's COMPLETELY a placebo; it's could be exerting it's effect by preventing or slowing the protein breakdown that occurs during exercise

as the authors say

"There is evidence, therefore, that supraphysiological GH administration to trained subjects results in conservation of protein and that this effect is particularly marked during exercise."

Look at Fig 1.

One of 5 males in the pacebo group had a power increase over 30 days.
Two of 5 in the low HGH group.

FOUR out of 5 in the high HGH dose group.

The results did show no increase for women. And by combining the two groups (men and women) the report stated that there was no effect, when clearly there was one for men.

If you have no idea how statistical analysis is performed, just stick to reading the conclusions instead of making asinine statements like the above.

They're NOT two entirely different things. They are two directly-related things. But I'm sure you don't care.

Kevin, do you even know what the word "edema" means?

Kevin, do you even know what the word "edema" means?

Use the downstairs bathroom.

Best Regards

John

Wow, it really does say "cro-magnum". Umm, I'm not anthropologist, but isn't the term "Cro-Magnon"?

Wow, it really does say "cro-magnum". Umm, I'm not anthropologist, but isn't the term "Cro-Magnon"?

cro-magnum: Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a P.I.

Best Regards

John

Thank you "Best Regards John" for keeping the tone light and interesting. I swear, I read these threads and feel angry because of the tone. Then I realize that I don't give a #### about this stuff.

Then I realize that I don't give a #### about this stuff.

BBTF is no place for a steroid agnostic it seems... and that's regrettable.

BBTF is no place for a steroid agnostic it seems... and that's regrettable.

Hey, if you ignore the 10-12 folks that are content to dryhump that particular soapbox, it ain't no thing!

I think there's little question that HGH *hurts* baseball players' abilities. Who was the most devastating offensive force in baseball history? No, not Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds--Eddie Gaedel, a hitter so dominant that the rules of the game had to be changed to keep him from completely unbalancing the competition. But if Gaedel had used HGH, he never would have even made the majors.

Um, is EVERYONE missing the part where it says HGH is useless UNLESS used with steroids?

It's not snake oil, its not useless.
When used with steroids it is, evidently, effective.

Is everyone just assuming that all the baseball players who were on HGH were on that IN LIEU of steroids?
C'mon people

Those of you not around like Repoz for the Salem witch trials of 1692, behold. At least they were persecuting sleazy witches ... and Bearded Wizards


I wonder who the PI was on that study?

And once again, look who makes the joke late and lame!

so kevin, is this another thread where you end up wrong but never admit it? Is that your new MO?

So, you equating muscle mass with edema too, Chris?

No, kevin, I made no comment about that, but I'd suggest the people making the statements before Congress know considerably more about it than you do.

...It has been shown to increase muscle mass.

For those who think it's better to look good than to feel good.

Is that your new MO?

New?

The most monstrously conceived communist plot in history...

The other day I had nothing to do, searched through Comcast's free movies on demand, and watched Dr. Strangelove. I must not be the only one, that's the second reference to that movie I've seen in 3 days, on completely unrelated blogs.

For those who think it's better to look good than to feel good.

Image is everything.

It's not snake oil, its not useless.
When used with steroids it is, evidently, effective.

If you know of a study that actually compares the effect of taking steroids with, and without, HgH, please let us know.

Otherwise, this looks like nothing more than speculation. I.e., guys who take steroids and HgH together get bigger. Of course, guys who take steroids and seltzer together also get bigger.

Pasta-diving Jeter's point about patterns of abuse not really being tested in clinical trials is a good one, and I wish someone would study the issue at dosages consistent with abuse.

I remember reading one unintentionally humorous study about health risks of steroids. In the conclusions they mentioned something along the lines of "with the exception of one subject, who took many times the recommended dosage..." Good papers should not contain sentences that make you groan out loud while reading them.

Pasta-diving Jeter's point about patterns of abuse not really being tested in clinical trials is a good one, and I wish someone would study the issue at dosages consistent with abuse.

Really? I wish someone would study the issue at dosages consistent with what baseball players actually use, which is obviously not the same thing as "abuse." (As opposed to, say, citing East German women's sports teams from decades ago.)

I must not be the only one, that's the second reference to that movie I've seen in 3 days, on completely unrelated blogs.

I'm guessing that seeing the movie has done two things: 1) It's made you more attuned to the references, and 2) it gave you more material to find as a reference. I mean, if you hadn't seen the movie before, how would have known if someone was referencing it?

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch, might we burn her?
CROWD: Burn her! Burn!
Sir Bedevere: What makes you think she's a witch?
Peasant 3: Well, she turned me into a newt!
Sir Bedevere: A newt?
Peasant 3: [meekly after a long pause] ... I got better.

Kevin, do you even know what the word "edema" means?

Yes. And it doesn't mean muscle mass.

Okay, then. Guess what the most universal side effect of hGH administration is. And guess what effect this would have on muscle mass.

And then dismiss it with some idiotic quip because you are too stupidly stubborn to admit that doctors and researchers know more about this than you do.

For those who think it's better to look good than to feel good.

Who doesn't make that obvious connection?

Looking good Billy Ray... Feeling good Lewis

I believe the Duke brothers cornered the HGH market at one time, but it only made them feel bloated and edemic...

Do you know how muscles actually work? Just asking.

Apparently you don't.

Increase in muscle mass(hypertrophy) does not necessarily mean an increase an increase in muscle force production.

In layman's terms, compare an olympic weightlifter with a pro bodybuilder. Or, the old school idea that lifting weights makes a baseball player "slow and stiff".

Firstly, muscle hypertrophy can mean either, myofrillar hypertrophy: hypertrophy of contractile tissue, ie actin and myosinproteins or, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy: hypertrophy of sarcoplasm, semifluid interfibrillar substance and non contractile proteins.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy will NOT lead to an increase in force production. With sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, filament area density actually DECREASES, even though the cross sectional area increases.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy will lead to an increase in force production. The myofibrils enlarge, leading to more actin and myosin filaments. Contractile proteins are synthesised, linking up to form new filaments, and filament density INCREASES.

Also, muscle force production is dependent not only on muscle. Neural factors matter immmensely too.

The nature of the work matters: how high is the external resistance, how much time does an athlete have to generate that force.

Furthermore, how good the athlete is at taking advantage of the elasticity of his muscles, tendons and ligaments matter too.

If you want a reference, try an intro text on sports science.

Ken Caminiti stirs in his grave.

Would it be better if the quote you quoted said "with what MOST baseball players actually use"? jeez.