# GH study carried out on athletes



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Here is a study that was at last carried out on athletes including bodybuilders to asses how GH effects performance...

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200805200-00215v1

some key points are...



> Conclusion: Claims that growth hormone enhances physical performance are not supported by the scientific literature. *Although the limited available evidence suggests that growth hormone increases lean body mass*, it may not improve strength; in addition, it may worsen exercise capacity and increase adverse events. More research is needed to conclusively determine the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance.





> *Lean body mass increased significantly in growth hormone-treated groups compared with groups not treated with growth hormone* (increase in lean body mass, 2.1 kg [95% CI, 1.3 to 2.9 kg]) (Table 3 and Appendix Figure 1, available at www.annals.org). The decrease in fat mass approached statistical significance (change in fat mass, -0.9 kg [CI, -1.8 to -0.0 kg]). Weight increased, although the difference was not statistically significant (change in weight, 0.3 kg [CI, -0.5 to 1.1 kg]).





> *Daily basal metabolic rate was higher in growth hormone-treated participants than in those not treated with growth hormone *(daily basal metabolic rate, 141 kcal/24 hours [CI, 69 to 213 kcal/24 hours]) (Table 3 and Appendix Figure 3, available at www.annals.org). Resting respiratory exchange ratio or respiratory quotient was lower in growth hormone-treated participants (-0.02 [CI, -0.03 to -0.01]; mean, all participants, 0.78 [sD, 0.03]), *reflecting the preferential use of lipids rather than carbohydrates for fuel at rest during growth hormone therapy. *Resting heart rate was also significantly higher in growth hormone-treated participants (3.8 beats/min [CI, 0.2 to 7.4 beats/min]).


although the study did also find that Strentgh was not improved..



> Two studies evaluated change in strength (47, 70). These studies treated participants with growth hormone for 42 days (47) and 84 days (70), the longest treatment durations of all included studies. On 1-repetition maximum voluntary strength testing, growth hormone use did not improve biceps strength (change, -0.2 kg [CI, -1.5 to 1.1 kg]) or quadriceps strength (change, -0.1 kg [CI, -1.8 to 1.5 kg]) (Table 3 and Appendix Figure 2, available at www.annals.org). One study evaluated 7 other muscle groups for change in maximum strength and assessed 4 measures of change in muscle circumference (70)-none of these changes were significantly different between growth hormone-treated and non-growth hormone-treated groups.


still the study is usefull for those considering GH use and what they might get from it...


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

4lbs of muscle gained over 84 days (12 weeks), 2lbs of fat lost in the same period...


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

yea but that 4lbs gain is new muscle and therfore kept muscle..


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> yea but that 4lbs gain is new muscle and therfore kept muscle..


Would that be Hyperplasia (new cell growth) as opposed to Hypertrophy Paul...?

Do you have any studies on the impact of GH on vital organs...? Although I suppose that really could refer to AAS also...


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

no study on vital organs but then there is no evidence to show it does or does not have an impact any opinions on this either way is just guess work...

Now i obvouisly cannot say for this article but i would think that they would not claim new muscle gained if it was just Hypertrophy when you look at the basics with GH as it converts to IGF-1 in the liver then i would say it was Hyperplasia.

this would go with my results as i have gained 20lbs of lean muscle between 2006 and 2008 this is also the length of time i have been using GH now i am not saying it is all down to GH as that would be stupid but for me to gain this amount after 19yrs on steroids you can logically assume it is mostly down to GH


----------



## maccer (Jul 11, 2007)

For the lean bodymass increases did it not say the mean duration was 20days? Can you translate those dosages to IU for me? in what does 36 µg/kg equal in IU? Thanks


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

a simple Google search would of got you the answer mate  ug is another way to represent a micro-gram(MCG) as for how many iu's this is would depend on how much solvent it is mixed with...

just remember guys this is a study so everything about the study is controlled so i would bear that in mind when you look at achieving the same..


----------



## maccer (Jul 11, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> a simple Google search would of got you the answer mate  ug is another way to represent a micro-gram(MCG) as for how many iu's this is would depend on how much solvent it is mixed with...
> 
> just remember guys this is a study so everything about the study is controlled so i would bear that in mind when you look at achieving the same..


Sorry mate I had a few drinks and my brain was not functioning, thanks for the answer.


----------



## Delhi (Dec 8, 2005)

Only thing that concerns me about this is the "Statistically significant" aspect.

The decrease in fat mass *approached *statistical significance (change in fat mass, -0.9 kg [CI, -1.8 to -0.0 kg]). Weight increased, although the difference was *not statistically significant *(change in weight, 0.3 kg [CI, -0.5 to 1.1 kg]).

Now being interested in stats I know that translates to *NO *difference in fat loss between groups.

If the study is accurate (No reason to think otherwise) then the suggestion is GH has no significant fat loss properties.

So the conclusion is that GH is usless at fat loss


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

jesus Del got an internet connection....


----------



## Delhi (Dec 8, 2005)

Pscarb said:


> jesus Del got an internet connection....


Whats one of those Paul?


----------



## Robsta (Oct 2, 2005)

I was gonna start a thread asking where Del had got to...nice to see you dude...:love:


----------



## Delhi (Dec 8, 2005)

robsta9 said:


> I was gonna start a thread asking where Del had got to...nice to see you dude...:love:


Same as big man....................Hows the training?


----------



## Robsta (Oct 2, 2005)

same as always mate.....fcukin' useless.

No it's going ok....gonna start to cut in about 2 weeks...


----------



## chem73 (Nov 30, 2006)

maccer said:


> For the lean bodymass increases did it not say the mean duration was 20days? Can you translate those dosages to IU for me? in what does 36 µg/kg equal in IU? Thanks


1mg is equal to 3iu, so this would be 0.108iu/kg. So if you are 100kg that is 10.8 iu.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it does not matter how much solvent you use for dilution, the weight "1mg" refferce to the solid. More solvent would offcurse mean more volume to inject. But when the pharmaceuitcs talk about 3iu they refer to the freezdried undiluted mass of 1mg somatropin.


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

chem73 said:


> 1mg is equal to 3iu, so this would be 0.108iu/kg. So if you are 100kg that is 10.8 iu.
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it does not matter how much solvent you use for dilution, the weight "1mg" refferce to the solid. More solvent would offcurse mean more volume to inject. But when the pharmaceuitcs talk about 3iu they refer to the freezdried undiluted mass of 1mg somatropin.


I'm 100kg's at the moment. So that means I need 8iu rather than 4iu? Can someone confirm that figure?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

you need as much as your body can handle or you can afford their is no magic number guys


----------



## chem73 (Nov 30, 2006)

And you can always question how the data can be extrapolated from 20 day to +6 month, to be useful for BBers. I wish that they would have done a longer test.


----------

