http://www.annals.org/content/152/9/568.abstract

That’s an interesting Mayo Clinic article, but really not relevant to this discussion.

Its focus is on “the realities of old age.” So, “there’s little evidence to suggest human growth hormone can help otherwise healthy adults regain youth and vitality.”

The references supplied are overwhelmingly to articles about aging and the elderly.

Did you read the 2nd link, down at the bottom of this page, with the abstract of and reactions to the study that J5 mentioned?

Since J5 added a link to a small study, I’ll counter with the Mayo Clinic’s web site:
“Although it appears that human growth hormone injections can increase muscle mass and reduce the amount of body fat in healthy older adults, the increase in muscle doesn’t translate into increased strength.”
Link: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/growth-hormone/HA00030

So…if someone who’s otherwise healthy wants to cause muscle swelling, by all means try HGH. If the idea is to get stronger, faster, or improve bat speed–look elsewhere.

Regardless, one might want to consider whether it’s worth it even if the marginal improvement cited by the article J5 linked is true as the following is also from the same Mayo Clinic article already linked:
“Human growth hormone may cause a number of side effects for healthy adults, including:
Carpal tunnel syndrome
Swelling in the arms and legs
Joint pain
Muscle pain
For men, enlargement of breast tissue (gynecomastia)

Human growth hormone may also contribute to conditions such as diabetes and heart disease.”

The 1/2 life of HGH is measured in hours. Testing positive is indeed the result of idiocy or getting ratted out. The benefits of abusing the stuff are marginal; the benfits of a testing program are purely for deterrence and political appearance. However, the point of deterring use of something that doesn’t actually enhance performance is weak at best.

If you look at the bottom of the abstract page (), you will see links to comments by critics, a response from Dr. Ho, and other pieces of interest.

/sarcasm off

However, I suggest you look at an actual professional baseball player who has played the game for 10+ years at a high level. He has the hand eye cordination and the ability to pick up a baseball out of the hand of the pitcher and get good reads to steal a base. Now picture that same pro a little bit faster and stronger. Is he better?

If no, then why do professional baseball players work out? Why do they train at all? If it is only hand eye cordination and these other abilities they’ve learned over time, why would they try and conidition themselves over the offseason? They must be real dumb.

Of course they don’t help catch a ball or hit a ball. These are abilities honed by the athlete over years and years of practice and could never be instantly gained no matter what the drug. But, take a AAAA type player who has the skills to excell in hitting and catching a baseball to be a good, not great, AAA player, but that just doesn’t have the power to get his shot in the bigs. That is the type of player that might benefit the most from getting that extra edge in power and speed.

Also, IF the drug helps recover from injury faster, that would greatly benefit a player who takes it when compared against others who don’t. He won’t wear down as much over time and be able to consistently put up numbers. That is probably the bigger gain than the minimal (if any) performance boost.

Barry Bonds is the classic example, he was already a stud player with amazing baseball gifts. Roided up like the hulk, he could now mash the ball into the next century because he already had the skills necassary to play the game at an all-star level.

And from reading it a couple of times, it improved their sprint times

Except the study doesn’t say that. It said it improved their sprint capacity which could translate into a better time. WTF does capacity mean? Is it muscle growth? Note, i don’t expect you to answer this, but it’s a weird statement.

Much more independent studying of HGH and it’s effects are needed and I’m really not sure why NOBODY is doing it

Because from what I’ve read and been told (brother in law has his PhD in chem and works for biotechs), it’s extremely hard getting to the human phase in testing, especially with something that can be harmful to humans.

What is significant to you anyway? What’s significant improvement to a player fighting for his professional career? Take the blinders off is all I’m saying, I don’t care if you do or don’t but to be so close minded here when it comes to HGH with as little as it’s been tested is again trusting a small sample size. It appears you picked your stance from a small sample size to begin with and have decided that you’d put down anyone who doesn’t agree. Which brings me back to the “bonehead” point I made earlier.

How many times to I have to mention that a change to foundational tools typically does not translate into a change in baseball performance, which is based on highly derived skills.

Does HGH improve the ability to read pitches out of the hand?

Does it improve hand-eye coordination?

Does it improve timing or hitting technique?

There is nothing in the study that suggests HGH can help anyone hit a ball, catch a ball, or pitch effectively.

A 3.9% improvement in “sprint capacity” wouldn’t even help a player steal a base or play defense because reading the play and getting a good jump are still necessary and unrelated to HGH use.

There are also dozens of other studies that have found no significant benefit of HGH use in healthy adults.

So….in answer to your question, an infinite number of posts won’t have an effect because the small effect noted in that article based on a very small sample size.

Another thing I thought was if the training regiments of the participants changed. It says they were recreational athletes. Did they keep the exact same workout regimant during the study as they had before? Or where they working out more. If a guy went from just recreationally working out to actually training, shaving .4 off a 100 in two months wouldn’t be difficult at all.

“63 male participants were assigned to receive one of four regimens”

63/4 = almost 16 people per regimen. 16 people is no where a large enough sample size to give definitive proof on gain.

“After eight weeks, researchers found that growth hormone improved sprint capacity in men and women by an average of 3.9% over the placebo group”

Any chance you have the link to the actual study. What does sprint capacity mean? Are they merely looking at times? Muscle mass? What? I hope it’s not times as sprinters times fluctuate wildly (more than enough to cover the gain shown above).

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/03/science/la-sci-growth-hormone-20100504