The Case for HGH

Kind of. Depends on the injury.
Steroids are prescribed all the time. My first daughter, a preemie, was given several rounds of steroids for lung development.
The difference? The steroids taken by athletes are anabolic.  The performance enhancing kind. The class of steroid hormones related to the testosterone. They increase protein within cells, which results in the buildup of tissue, especially in muscles.

 

I think the NFL cares more about the advantage that HGH gives than it does about the side effects.

I've read a lot of studies that have said that there isn't much proof that HGH does anywhere close to the damage that steroids do...

 

That's the problem with HGH. There just isn't enough data yet on the long-term effects. I have no problem with the NFL banning a substance when the medical profession is still investigating what it will do to the human body long term.

Somebody brought up treatment of the elderly with HGH. Doesn't it make sense that doctors might be willing to use a treatment with "older folks" than they would a healthy man in his 20s or 30s?

 

Actually, it's not really approved to ameliorate the effects of aging. It's primary use is to treat kids who are deficient in growth hormone.

 

Understood. My point was more that the effective use of the drug for one type of person does not always mean it is appropriate for another.