The Case for HGH

[black dude with pompano]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2733919

ESPN investigative reporter Tom Farrey surveys the medical literature, and finds that HGH may help NFL players with pituitary damage caused by concussions and other head injuries, which can be progressively debilitating, even after a player retires. Unfortunately, anti-PED hysteria will likely prevent the league from allowing HGH to be used as treatment in these cases—at least legitimately.

The league has banned HGH (on very little evidence), allegedly to protect its players from the harm it allegedly does to their health. But the game of football itself is causing debilitating, potentially life-threatening injuries to players, and we think little of it. These injuries are the entirely predictable result of the slobber-knocking hits that make the game so much fun to watch, both live, and from the six different angles in various highlight packages on SportsCenter.

So we're okay with trusting players to take the risks to their health that come with actually playing football. But we draw the line at letting them use artificial drugs to help them recover more quickly from those injuries. Because that might be dangerous.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124700.html

 

[Lugnuts]

I'm sure he's done great work - he's a fantastic journalist. Can't wait to dive into this.

But from your post, I guess my question would be... If you have pituitary damage, should you really be playing football in the NFL anyway?

But I'll read the article.....

 

[fishwrapper]

Pituitary damage or alteration is a small fraction of head injuries related to football concussions.
The study cited, one in favor of HGH for treatment, could only come up with a number of 1 in 10. Feeling is, if there was a "double-blind" done, the number would be even more insignificant.
It's a case of a writer finding one study and writing a contrarian view.
With limited time, you could find several studies reporting rebuttal.
Fact is, at this time, Science doesn't fully understand the lasting effects of HGH on the body (and brain). And, probably won't for years.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

So, naturally, we should construct another infrastructure of unenforceable drug laws to ban it.

 

[Stoney]

Interesting, and props to Farrey for giving an unconventional view. Maybe more should be discussing rules for living with PEDs instead of naively acting like we can somehow make em go away.

 

[fishwrapper]

So, naturally, we should construct another infrastructure of unenforceable drug laws to ban it.

No, I didn't say that. Especially when the only test available for detection is blood.
But, on the flip side, citing one study, whose marker is a small percentage, is just as misleading.

 

[cranberry]

First, isn't this story very old or did ESPN get the date wrong?

Updated: January 18, 2007, 9:59 AM ET

On topic, could the thousands upon thousands of old folks who swear by this stuff be all that wrong?

 

[fishwrapper]

First, isn't this story very old or did ESPN get the date wrong?

Updated: January 18, 2007, 9:59 AM ET

On topic, could the thousands upon thousands of old folks who swear by this stuff be all that wrong?

A million people swore by fenfluramine and phentermine (fen-phen) and had results to show for it. That is, until their heart valves began developing holes.

 

[black dude with pompano]

First, isn't this story very old or did ESPN get the date wrong?

Updated: January 18, 2007, 9:59 AM ET

On topic, could the thousands upon thousands of old folks who swear by this stuff be all that wrong?

If this a year old, I apologize. It was linked recently, and I just saw the January date and assumed it was current.

 

[cranberry]

First, isn't this story very old or did ESPN get the date wrong?

Updated: January 18, 2007, 9:59 AM ET

On topic, could the thousands upon thousands of old folks who swear by this stuff be all that wrong?

If this a year old, I apologize. It was linked recently, and I just saw the January date and assumed it was current.

No problem. It's still an interesting topic.

 

[fishwrapper]

That makes sense. Because it doesn't reference anything going on in Major League Baseball.

 

[JayFarrar]

So is this the same as my doctor prescribing a course of steroids to treat an injury, but if I was an drug-tested athlete I would be banned?

 

[fishwrapper]

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.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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...

 

[outofplace]

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?

 

[cranberry]

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.

 

[outofplace]

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.