god forbid you comment on it.
jester wrote:
god forbid you comment on it.
30 years ago they were writing exactly the same crap about anabolic steroids, based on "studies" either specifically designed to fail, or designed by people who had no idea what they were doing.
As always, it is the ATHLETES and those who work closely with them who best know how to exploit--in a positive sense--HGH and other commonly used PEDs. God forbid the designers of studies actually consult those in the trenches-- often without advanced degrees--about how best to study a particular drug.
IIRC, the late, great Dan "The Steroid Guru" Duchaine had a BA---in Theater.
http://www.qfac.com/articles/tribute.htmlAnyone who believes that is a dumbass, honestly.
marijuologist wrote:
Anyone who believes that is a dumbass, honestly.
Tell that to this person:
“It doesn’t look like it helps and there’s a hint of evidence it may worsen athletic performance,” said Dr. Hau Liu, of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., who was lead author of the review."
Gee, think about it, Bonds would've hit 100 more homers if he didn't take HGH. Marion Jones would've broken 10 seconds.
“It doesn’t look like it helps and there’s a hint of evidence it may worsen athletic performance,” said Dr. Hau Liu, of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., who was lead author of the review."
What are you saying, that I'm supposed to be impressed because he's a doctor? Medical doctors generally know nothing about physical performance, let alone measuring it. Remember that these are the same people touting orthotics and anti-inflammatory drugs as the cure for all running injuries. And they certainly recieve no training in the area of performance enhancing drugs. I'm inclined to totally disregard this "finding" as more worthless research performed by people who have no idea what the hell it is that they're doing.
Yeah, that's why they all take the stuff- because it hurts their performance. Goood lord, why even publish such rubbish.
If that's true then let's get it off the banned list and put it on the store shelves for all of us to use. After all, it wouldn't give us an advantage at all.
WDOWTIN wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23677433/
I believe it is the author of this article that is confused and seems to not understand the function of HGH.
OR, the goal of the article is to spread propaganda that HGH doesn’t work.
Doctor Truth wrote: 30 years ago they were writing exactly the same crap about anabolic steroids, based on "studies" either specifically designed to fail, or designed by people who had no idea what they were doing.
As always, it is the ATHLETES and those who work closely with them who best know
And more recently than that, they were writing about how training twice a day was considerably suboptimal, based on "studies" and/or models focusing on lab measurements or physiological theory.
Since few people here know how to ready studies, I will add some comments
1) This was a review of the studies done. But few (or none) of the studies used dosages commonly used by those seeking a performance benefit. If the dose is low, then it may not reach the threshold to promote a performance gain. However, it does show that even therapeutic doses can add lean mass and reduce fat mass. However, a lot more might not add more muscle. There could be feedback mechanisms involved.
2) The studies that were done rarely used any performance measures and drawing conclusions from a few studies is dangerous.
3) Adding more muscle could be detrimental to some performance markers
4) The MD wrote a review. While your family physician may not know a lot about study design, folks who are medical researchers do. Anyway he did not design the studies, he reviewed the ones that were done.
5) Doing studies involving real life dosages can never be done since the ethical limits preclude that.
It might be that HGH is not as good as it is touted, but ethical considerations prevent us from finding out except in animal models.
I should add that people really ought to read the study and not just rely on some lame reporters take on it. The study is available at the Annals of Internal Medicine website for no cost. Printed it out but just skimmed it.
they said that about steroids too ... yawn.
also have you seen the movie "Reefer Madness"?
this is just b.s. propaganda or poor meta data type research.
everyone knows that it works - this simply says to me that they cannot provide evidence that it works.
Doctor Truth wrote:
jester wrote:god forbid you comment on it.
30 years ago they were writing exactly the same crap about anabolic steroids, based on "studies" either specifically designed to fail, or designed by people who had no idea what they were doing.
As always, it is the ATHLETES and those who work closely with them who best know how to exploit--in a positive sense--HGH and other commonly used PEDs. God forbid the designers of studies actually consult those in the trenches-- often without advanced degrees--about how best to study a particular drug.
IIRC, the late, great Dan "The Steroid Guru" Duchaine had a BA---in Theater.
http://www.qfac.com/articles/tribute.html
wow, someone remembering the late great Duchaine. I used to read his articles religiously. He was a good dude. He was the person who exposed Met-Rx putting gear in their cans way back in the 80's. They changed cans and formulas right after that.
bump
hgh works twice as good with thyroid too
they wouldn't be putting HGH into that NOPe oregon juice if it wasn't some goodassshit