HGH and Masters Athletes?

The 'Anti Ageing' business is doing very wel out of pandering to many people's vanity. In reality if there really was an anti ageing treatment, it would be a huge breakthrough in medical science.

When the real anti ageing treatment is developed in a few decades (hopefully before I die) it will actually make people grow younger again. I think it will take a few years to regnerate all of the cells in the body of say a 70 year old, but surely that is what will happen?

It's so easy to get?

Really?

where?

Just what this world will need, a handful of rich, entitled elites who are able to keep their bodies fresh for decades longer than everybody else. Never mind the obvious overpopulation taking place already. I just hope I'm gone when science gets to that point. It really might be the best thing for the galaxy and the universe if humanity dies out on this rock before we figure out how to colonize other planets...

The problem with aging is a fairly simple conundrum

Our bodies over a 10 year period replace every single cell.

Over the recycling period the cells are no longer of the same quality as the ones before this in turn relates to aging

The use of improving the bodies hormone levels switches on the ability to produce better cells during this regeneration period.

producing these hormones and creating the right environment is key of course, i.e. if you're a lazy fatty you will still produce diminished quality cells etc

But if your active with a good diet, there is no reason to believe that you couldn't slow the bodies aging processes (not stop it, not reverse it, and not saying you would live longer, but rather reap the benefits of a stronger fluid body)

It's not obvious at all.

Mooiiiisssttt wrote:

I see guys all the time in their late 40s-to-mid-50s who are clearly using hormone therapy, or PEDs, or something. You know, the fellows who are way strong, lean, slightly aggressive, you can see them from a mile away. The same jerkoffs who might have a brow lift and be super tanned. By the late 40s, the natural thing is to start to lose some muscle mass, add some fat, postural strength lessens, men mellow out a bit, have a bit less energy. When I see the buff guy with low fat and he's edgy and aggressive, it's obvious.

As a middle-ager who prefers to age naturally, fuuuck you pathetic old-timers who are doped.

It's not obvious at all.

You just described me perfectly, and I have never touched a thing, ever. I look the same, I'm still ripped and muscular and aggressive--but the evidence of aging is invisible. It shows in decreased max weights--e.g. maxxed out at 355 bench, now do 275.

I'm now almost 51, and going strong. I fully expect a dramatically visible aging effect over the next 9 years. These are the end times for me, and I'm trying to enjoy them as best I can. Man, where did the time go.

past master wrote:

The 'Anti Ageing' business is doing very wel out of pandering to many people's vanity. In reality if there really was an anti ageing treatment, it would be a huge breakthrough in medical science.

When the real anti ageing treatment is developed in a few decades (hopefully before I die) it will actually make people grow younger again. I think it will take a few years to regnerate all of the cells in the body of say a 70 year old, but surely that is what will happen?

You don't have to call it anti-aging treatment if you don't want to. Women also have estrogen replacement therapy.

Treatment you are talking about might never happen.

strength training? wrote:

I am only 30, but have always been intrigued by the aging athlete. Talking with most older Masters Running friends, I know of only one that utilizes strength training. I always wondered if a steady dose of strength training over the years would help keep the body more in tact and help somewhat preserve that youth in our legs. Feedback please.

I'm a younger masters runner (43) but I strength train regularly. Usually lower body 2-3 times a week (done right after my hardest running workouts for the week, to allow for maximum recovery time), upper body twice a week.

I use heavy weights - using a weight that I can manage for no more than 4-6 reps. Leg work includes lunges and split squats with a barbell, single leg deadlifts with dumbbells or a barbell, and stepping up onto a stool with weights in hand.

I think it's really helped me maintain and even improve my speed some as I age (I started running in my mid-30s, so I'm not comparing my speed now to the speed I might have had as a collegiate runner). I'm also much more resistant to injury when I lift (knock on wood).

I believe the most benefit from weights work comes from a) lifting HEAVY - if you do light weights for 15-20 reps, you're just duplicating your run; and b) focusing on single leg exercises that force you to engage your glutes. I particularly like step ups and lunges where you step one leg back, squat, and then bring that leg back forward. Anything that forces you to push off forcefully with one leg, using the glute and firing through the posterior chain.

Too many sprinters try to be bodybuilders and it just slows them down...too much muscle mass. Does this also apply to older sprinters too? I would guess it does?

This was a fantastic reply. Honestly. I co sign everything you just said. I aim to keep all reps in the 4-7 range with compound, core movements. The old adage of high reps, low weight just doesn't make sense. That's muscle building, not developing strength. Big difference. Plus, there has to be a nice surge of T that comes from heavy functional strength training.

????? wrote:

Our bodies over a 10 year period replace every single cell.

I don't think so. Brain cells are not replaced.

specific training wrote:

Too many sprinters try to be bodybuilders and it just slows them down...too much muscle mass. Does this also apply to older sprinters too? I would guess it does?

You're weird! It didn't slow down Ben Johnson! And there are other "bodybuilder type" sprinters that run fast...you just have to go back and research!

No, I'm telling you how it is. Too much muscle slows you down. Sprinters are not bodybuilders.

As an older masters runner who competes in the long sprints at national level, I don't see many bodybuilder types, but as a group the 100-400 meter guys are trim and muscular. You don't see many scrawny, skinny legged distance runner body types in the M50 to M75 age groups. You do see some fat guys, but they're running on "couch talent," meaning they can sit on the couch all day and still have enough natural talent to beat guys like me.

I lift, but I don't do low rep, heavy weight. We usually do 4 sets of 8-10 reps followed by a burner of 1 set of 20 reps with a lower weight. I also do HIIT type exercises once or twice a week.

Studies have shown that HIIT and weight lifting boosts T levels in older men.

fisky wrote:

Studies have shown that HIIT and weight lifting boosts T levels in older men.

Not as much as TRT & HGH replacement therapy for GH:

Big Sprinters That Kick Butt wrote:

specific training wrote:

Too many sprinters try to be bodybuilders and it just slows them down...too much muscle mass. Does this also apply to older sprinters too? I would guess it does?

You're weird! It didn't slow down Ben Johnson! And there are other "bodybuilder type" sprinters that run fast...you just have to go back and research!

Ben Johnson is skinny compared to bodybuilders.

I have friends who have gotten Testosterone and HGH from doctors for "low" levels. The doctor decides what is low and they are getting paid to give the customer what he wants. A TUE could probably be obtained based on the prescription. That does not make it fair for competition?

One thing for which Salazar is under scrutiny is Thyroid meds to get his runners "back to normal". But what is normal for someone running 110mi/wk at high intensity? Is there any data? Again, a TUE can be obtained but it is clearly done for an advantage.

Is there a difference between the Olympic level and the Masters level? Yes. But ultimately someone is using medication to move them up in competition. Maybe the masters runner does not rob someone of a paycheck, but they certainly make the competition much less meaningful.

CleanMastersGuy wrote:

I have friends who have gotten Testosterone and HGH from doctors for "low" levels. The doctor decides what is low and they are getting paid to give the customer what he wants. A TUE could probably be obtained based on the prescription. That does not make it fair for competition?

One thing for which Salazar is under scrutiny is Thyroid meds to get his runners "back to normal". But what is normal for someone running 110mi/wk at high intensity? Is there any data? Again, a TUE can be obtained but it is clearly done for an advantage.

Is there a difference between the Olympic level and the Masters level? Yes. But ultimately someone is using medication to move them up in competition. Maybe the masters runner does not rob someone of a paycheck, but they certainly make the competition much less meaningful.

Just have two separate competitions. Let the TUE dudes with their testosterone and GH, or whatever else, compete against one another. Then have a category for masters athletes who do not use any pharmaceuticals. Two (2) categories: "Clean masters" & "TUE masters." Aggressively test the clean masters - make it a lifetime ban for a drug positive of any kind. Peroid. No testing with the TUE masters...let them shoot it out for bragging rights as to who's getting the best bang for their pharmaceutical buck! 😉

Having seen the news about that woman who just got the 1500m record ratified after 15 years and was an absolute druggie does this show that no one really cares about masters records??