HGH. How bad is it?

[durl]

First, let me say that I'm against players using artificial substances to enhance their performance. Steroids? No place for them in sports.

I have to admit that I don't know a lot about HGH. Apparently it doesn't build muscle as much as it promotes healing. Can anyone recommend a good source for researching HGH and how it compares to steroids?

With the Mitchell Report buzz, I began to wonder, if HGH truly doesn't build mass, how different is it from something like cortisone shots that help players get onto the field when they wouldn't be able to otherwise?

I'm not suggesting allowing HGH, I simply would like to learn more about it.

[757690]

This thread has some info on HGH

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64352

There really is not much to read about, since HGH is so new. That is why it is banned, unlike cortisone shots. NO one knows the real long term effects of it.

It does not build mass, actually it does the opposite. It helps the person taking it lose body fat. This helps the person taking it become quicker, have more endurance and throw a bit harder.

[mlbfan30]

This blog

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomi...h-in-baseball/

has several articles on HGH and also links to others articles. However his main blog is mostly about the economics of baseball.

[SMcGavin]

According to the research that is out, it's not that bad at all. It is prescribed to kids with growth problems. The issue with HGH at this point is almost entirely ethical, not medical (unlike anabolic steroids).

If you want a reasonable overview of HGH check out the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_hormone_treatment

I did some research through more credible (medical) journals a couple months ago because I had the same question you do, and that wikipedia article seems pretty accurate.

[757690]

Originally Posted by SMcGavin

According to the research that is out, it's not that bad at all. It is prescribed to kids with growth problems. The issue with HGH at this point is almost entirely ethical, not medical (unlike anabolic steroids).

If you want a reasonable overview of HGH check out the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_hormone_treatment

I did some research through more credible (medical) journals a couple months ago because I had the same question you do, and that wikipedia article seems pretty accurate.

This is the key sentence from wikipedia.

"Chronic use of HGH is not well studied, except when used in children for acute growth deficiencies. A long term increase in colon cancer and Hodgkin's Disease has been observed in these cases"

This is from a link within the wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGH_controversies

This is what I was referring to. There in not enough evidence on how it affects adults who are using it for reasons other than those approved by the FDA to conclude anything about HGH. This is why it is banned, and should be until more is learned.

[TheBigLebowski]

I sprinkle HGH on my Mexican food. Makes it easier to digest.

[SMcGavin]

Originally Posted by 757690

This is the key sentence from wikipedia.

"Chronic use of HGH is not well studied, except when used in children for acute growth deficiencies. A long term increase in colon cancer and Hodgkin's Disease has been observed in these cases"

This is from a link within the wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGH_controversies

This is what I was referring to. There in not enough evidence on how it affects adults who are using it for reasons other than those approved by the FDA to conclude anything about HGH. This is why it is banned, and should be until more is learned.

Fair enough. There is not long term research studying the use of HGH by people without a growth hormone deficiency. But all of the evidence we have now suggests the risks of HGH use are low. Using HGH is probably healthier than smoking cigarettes.

[bounty37h]

its illegal, isnt that bad enough?