side effects of GH injections?

[cfdavid]

---

Members don't see this ad.

There are plenty of endocrinologists who make careers out of studying the ins and outs of HCG. I would be inclined to heed their warnings over some body builder. Note that a disproportionate number of body builders, pro wrestlers and pro athletes seem to be having health issues later in life, which may be related to substances they dabbled in during their careers. Even Gov. Arnold had heart issues.

I'll reiterate. Very few endocrinologists are aware of HCG and it's off label uses in male bodybuilders. Very few.

I never endorsed the use of HCG and other post cycle therapies that bodybuilders use. Nor would I suggest that they would be free from longer term side effects. Again, my philosophy is that unless there is an innate deficiency, it's best to allow your body to continue on auto-pilot (don't mess with Mother Nature).

But, it's a fact that there have been many (far too many) dudes out there that have taken things to the ultimate extreme. And some of these guys have diligently documented their short term effects. There are elements in the bodybuilding community (not all) that are obsessed with this stuff. They do their homework using the minimal published research available with respect to performance enhancement. They perform mini-clinical trials that would otherwise never occur due to ethical concerns.

 

[Law2Doc]

But, it's a fact that there have been many (far too many) dudes out there that have taken things to the ultimate extreme. And some of these guys have diligently documented their short term effects. There are elements in the bodybuilding community (not all) that are obsessed with this stuff. They do their homework using the minimal published research available with respect to performance enhancement. They perform mini-clinical trials that would otherwise never occur due to ethical concerns.

There is a huge disincentive to report side effects and negative reactions when using a substance improperly or illegally. Particularly when as you suggested, the community is obsessed with the performance enhancement properties. A physician doing a study would tend to report all results good and bad, while a body builder proponent of use of hormones to get results would tend to only list the extremes, and underplay certain early warning signs. Results that do not occur coincident to the drug use, such as cancers, heart issues that manifest themselves many years later, long after ones body building career is over, tend not to show up in such diligent documentation. Unless you are using scientific methods and controls, self documentation of illicit use of a substance by someone is really not going to be particularly informative.

 

[BaylorGuy]

Hey guys....

So I was wondering if any of you guys have any knowledge on GH. I tutor this student who is 16 and is a pretty hardcore basketball player. He is about 5'8" and he has said to me that he has a strong interest in getting GH injections because he thinks it will help him grow much taller....potentiall up to 6'4".

He met this doctor that said he does this stuff but I am thinking that this doctor is trying to take advantage of the situation here. I am trying to convince him not to do it because my instincts tell me that taking GH at an early age and when your body obviously has no problem with its own GH is not a good thing.

Does anyone know about any potential side effects or dangers of this hormone supplementation for a normal person? I keep on telling him he has time to grow naturally since he is only 16 but I need a smoking gun to really have him think about the dangers of this stuff.

Thanks a lot for your help guys. I greatly appreciate this.

Look at Barry Bonds, Mcguire, and Sosa in 1988, then compare to current.

 

[cfdavid]

There is a huge disincentive to report side effects and negative reactions when using a substance improperly or illegally. Particularly when as you suggested, the community is obsessed with the performance enhancement properties. A physician doing a study would tend to report all results good and bad, while a body builder proponent of use of hormones to get results would tend to only list the extremes, and underplay certain early warning signs. Results that do not occur coincident to the drug use, such as cancers, heart issues that manifest themselves many years later, long after ones body building career is over, tend not to show up in such diligent documentation. Unless you are using scientific methods and controls, self documentation of illicit use of a substance by someone is really not going to be particularly informative.

I agree that the "mini clinical trials" are hardly scientific. But, some of these guys really do list the pros and cons in a very frank way. Most are aware of the risks, but they are willing to take them anyway. I think that's why they don't mind documenting any harmful effects as well.

Perhaps the scientific community could learn a bit from these mavericks. Looking at the history of medicine, it wasn't uncommon for the mad scientists and physicians to experiment on themselves and others. Like when ether and chloroform were first used as an anesthetic etc. I forgot the name of the dude that first started "experimenting" with chloroform, but he was putting drops of it in the drinks of people he invited to his dinner parties. (some friend eh?? lol)

 

[Law2Doc]

I agree that the "mini clinical trials" are hardly scientific. But, some of these guys really do list the pros and cons in a very frank way. Most are aware of the risks, but they are willing to take them anyway. I think that's why they don't mind documenting any harmful effects as well.

How do they track and document what happens to folks 20+ years later? For themselves they apparently don't care, as it is more important to them to look a certain way than attain longterm health. As someone on a medical track, though, you must realize that studies by physicians and PhDs are sometimes criticized for not having adequate n values, or maintaining adequate controls, or manipulating data, so you really want to be additionally skeptical of "studies" of folks with no scientific background, doing something illegal, and who are proponents of a specific outcome.

 

[cfdavid]

How do they track and document what happens to folks 20+ years later? For themselves they apparently don't care, as it is more important to them to look a certain way than attain longterm health. As someone on a medical track, though, you must realize that studies by physicians and PhDs are sometimes criticized for not having adequate n values, or maintaining adequate controls, or manipulating data, so you really want to be additionally skeptical of "studies" of folks with no scientific background, doing something illegal, and who are proponents of a specific outcome.

Law2Doc, I want to stress that some of their data may be useful for looking at near term effects etc. I'm not aware of too many guys that have documented their experiences over the long term. But, there have been some guys from the 70's that attibute multiple heart attacks and strokes to their past abuse of anabolic substances. However, those are hardly any more scientific. But, perhaps the scientific community could make contact with these guys (there are enough of them after all) in order to get a better handle on some of those longer term effects. Maybe there could be a less than ideal consensus gained on which adverse effects were likely caused by drugs versus other environmental or genetic factors.

I think it would be a mistake to disgard some of this "data" just because they didn't enroll in a clinical study in the first place. I'm sure much could be gained from their experiences. Perhaps then a bona fide study could be initiated using a hypothesis generated from their use/abuse. It that really any different from some studies that have "tracked" the longer term effects of abusing alcohol or tobacco?

 

[Law2Doc]

It that really any different from some studies that have "tracked" the longer term effects of abusing alcohol or tobacco?

I actually believe it is different, because folks who use alcohol and tobacco, which are currently legal, will tend to be more forthcoming, so you are more likely able to get a bigger and better cross section of that population, at different ages and conditions, and follow them longterm. Folks that illicitly buy HGH or other steroids from foreign or internet sources aren't as likely to come forward, so you have a smaller handful of more brazen, currently healthy, types touting their experiences. Sometimes looking at skewed data from a small number of people gives you the totally wrong conclusion, which I suspect is the main reason the scientific community hasn't jumped on board with the folks you describe. That a few dozen folks have had great performance enhancement and negligible side effects and documented that fact does not mean that they will not have future effects, nor does it mean that there aren't thousands of others who did have negative experiences in the short term, but would prefer not to admit to ilicit activity.

 

[Doctodd]

Bodybuilders use GH along with other compounds to increase muscle size and density, but there are also theraputic uses for lower back damage but the dosing is not well established and is highly influeneced by the dosing regiemts of bodybuilders.

Also, there is no valid correlation between GH use and neoplasm growth.

So i guess noone can follow up to my post about asking for links to studies? Regarding some of the other posts, GH is now available in a much less expensive form for about $250/month at 0.2/day, which is pretty much the lowest dose they make it in. It comes in a pen that will last 28 days. I order for my patients from a pharmacy in Utah. Great service so far.

If anyone has links to studies, they would be appreciated.

T

 

[Phil Anthropist]

Not a Pre-Allo topic...