jester69

That is a question this author tries to answer for Outside magazine in This article

His conclusions? I recommend reading the article but to summarize:

He liked HGH, liked testosterone, thought steriods and EPO were not worth it. It all enhanced his performance but some of it scared him. (from page 10)

anyway, the article is an interesting read on a hotly contested subject to be sure.

take care,

Jester

chip

..If your yound and It's your first time being doped up maybe yes?

deliriou5

doping in general is not good for this reason... when you dope, your body slows down or shuts down its machinery for making the endogenous (naturally made by your body) versions of the stuff that your taking. so that means when you go off of those performance-enhancing drugs, you're in much worse shape than if you had never taken them at all.

chip

There are some natural choices also like garlic cayenne & unpasturized apple cider vinegar

Guest

Sure, if you don't mind testicular and/or prostate cancer, cartilage and ligament damage, etc. then HGH and testosterone is the way to go!

Koffee

G-Hoch

I want to see athletes competing against each other, not against each others doctor.

I

jester69

Hmm, from the article I got the impression that all this guy was doing was raising the HGH and Testosterone levels to where they would have been when he was younger, say 20-25. I know that certain hormones drop off as one ages, and raising them back to youthful levels doesn't sound that dangerous, but i'm no expert.

In any event, I don't do chemicals, just had never seen an article like this one before and thought it was worth sharing.

take care,

Jester

P.S. Did any of you read the article? I know it was long but a lot of the comments attribute to the author ideas he was opposed to. E.G. G-Hoch's comment, the author said in no uncertain terms he thought professional sport should ban the stuff.

bac

I did read the entire article. I've not read anything from this unique perspective before. This athlete seems to be shooting for the fountain of youth as well as the performance enhancing effects of doping. He clearly states that this was an experiment with an absolute end-date. It was very educating to me!

ThanX for sharing!

Croak

Very interesting article on an outsiders view of sport-drug culture. Although the topic is a little blurry.

The clinic he went to was an anti-ageing clinic, they have them all over the world. The HGH at 1iu a day is very normal (a little on the high side) for this treatment. The testosterone (which is a steroid, I have no idea why they differentiated it from other steroids) he used was probably twice what is usually taken by older men using hormone replacement therapy (depending on the ester).

The point being, a fair whack of the exogenous drugs were being used to bring the athlete back to base level, say what he was at 21. The effect would be markedly different on a younger athlete.

I don't understand the point of the Deca? He wasn't trying to gain weight or muscle mass. Granted, it is very cheap and widely available but hardly right for the scenario. The doctor didn't seem too concerned at the weight gain, which in cycling terms, is fairly detrimental.

I don't really think this is a good look at drugs in professional sport, but can highlight the strength of these drugs (especially EPO).

A quick note on drugs in sport:
We, as viewers and consumers, demand a certain quality and quantity of sport to tide us over. This amount increases with time, yet the human body can only do so much. It is the limiting factor in this equasion of money, sponsorship, television rights and beer commercials. We are the ones pushing the stars to these extremes and yet are the first to cry foul when we hear they are trying to keep their bodies' intact with these substances.

I'm not condoning drugs in sport, but it is a little hypocrytical, don't you think?

Croak

Any athlete that has used exogenous hormones to elevate their own personal levels will have a permanent advantage over others.

It is not the actual hormone that is advantageous, rather the effect of it. In this case, the testosterone will build muscle, which will stay well after the cessation of the drug. With a correct post-cycle routine, endogenous levels will return quickly, leaving the athlete at the same level hormone wise, where as with ~10 lbs extra muscle.

It is not as clear cut with EPO, but it is still apparent. The effects of EPO last several months as the blood slowly returns to natural hematocrit levels. This elevated state helps training, and in turn, helps the athlete in many forms.

I clearly believe once one has done these substances, they have gained an advantage which is virtually irreversible.

deliriou5

Good point

jester69

I got curious and did more research, and you find opinions on all sides of the hgh issue. Here are some opinions that HGH is bad even replacing it to levels same as in ones youth..

quackwatch on HGH

at the bottom of that article are lots of references to actual medical journals. The really odd thing is I have found the PDR will say one thing and then a journal will say the opposite. Frustrating to be sure.

for example, the above link talks about HGH being released by certain amino acids as being false:
then you go read the PDR here and they say the exact opposite:
Frustrating to say the least. Glad i'm not a DR, having people ask me to come up with the right answer would be very frustrating & too much responsibility.

Anyway, the magic anti-aging formulation is lots of excercise and good nutrition. No need to shoot anything up.

take care,

Jester

Croak

HGH is an interesting topic.

Many companies are trying to come up with concotions that will ellicit a natural release beyond normal levels (something like what tribulus terristis does with testosterone). They haven't so far.

The other thing is they are now discovering what components are giving the wanted effects. They have isolated a hormone called IGF (insulin-like growth factor), which is the hormone responsible for much of the muscle growth that is associated with HGH. Most people now don't inject HGH if they want mass, they use IGF (rIGF-Long3 to be exact). It is much cheaper than HGH, more specific and faster acting.

Also, the key to a long life is eating less and staying fit without doing too much. Strange but true.

MKRG

Simply put. If you believe putting unnatural or even natural substances in your body to improve your performance ie Hormones, you are stupid. There are reasons that are acceptable and they are medical, for instance the use of EPO to rebuild red blood cells after chemo. Monkeying with hormones is stupid, just ask all the women who wer using hormone replacement therapy and got messed up from it. The Human body functions best when allowed to exist in its natural state without doping and that type of thing.

Croak

Where do you draw the line? If you eat a certain amount of fat in your diet, it can elevate testosterone levels. Is that unnatural?

What about legal supplements?

The human body is a diverse machine, it sets itself equilibriums. If one wants to achieve a specific goal, changing the equilibriums will create an advantage in one area, but a trade off in another. Exactly what professional sports people do every day.

cbhungry

The adage, "too much of a good thing, may not be good"applies to any replacement of natural endogenous hormones.

The oldest experiment in history is the replacement of estrogen hormones after menapause. It does make a women's skin tone better, feel better, decrease osteoperosis, better pelvic muscle tone, less pain with intercourse etc. but there are downsides ie" risk of breast cancer etc.

Also, look at cortisone.

In low endogenous doses during exercise it increases lung capacity, "fatigue less", regulates sodium and fluid absorption etc. but in high doses, causes cataracts, diabetes, osteoperosis and decreases muscle mass.

The studies with human growth hormones have not been carried out past 6 months. Initially, there are improvements in lean muscle mass, decreased central weight gain, improved aerobic capacity etc. However, there are human examples of too much growth hormone.....called acromegaly where these people develop diabetes, hypertension, joint problems etc. There are those in the medical community studying its long term replacement, figuring out what is the best dose. Their theory is why not replace "somatopause", just like treating male or female menopause? (Our levels of growth hormone does decrease with age.) Strangely enough, if you make no growth hormones, (besides being short) you can survive and not die!

Guest

CB, I'm 5' 1 1/2". Is that short enough for me to live?



Koffee

Bikepacker67

Not according to Randy Newman

!!Comatoa$ted

I saw a similar feature on this done by 60 minutes. They showed ageing people who took daily supplements of hormones and the like. Now they did not take massive doses or anything like that, just doses that thier bodies would have made in the prime of thier lives. The people were in extremely good health and spirits and did not look thier age, they looked much younger.

As well the doctor running this bussiness is a very rich man, and so are his clients.

Of course this was a news bit on TV and it can be spun in any way to make it look good but it does give one something to consider when discussing hormones and the like. Not for athletic performance, but small doses that the body made at one time and is no longer producing to extend a high quality of life. Kinda like a pre-emptive strike on old age.