Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

DrugReporter

No One Really Knows If HGH Is Bad for You

By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted March 25, 2008.


While scientists hash out human growth hormone's health risks, stars like Sly Stallone and ordinary guys are shelling out millions for fast results.
Advertisement

In an earlier report on human growth hormone (HGH), known simply as growth hormone in scientific circles, I took athletes like Roger Clemens to task for lying about taking it to increase their field performance. It's an obsolete tactic to employ, especially during a period in which superstars like Sylvester Stallone not only take it to bulk up for films like his latest Rambo roid rage-fest, but also advise anyone within range that they should hop on its juice as well. Sure, Clemens was on the line for perjury, dragged as he was in front of Congress on the matter, but, as hoops stars say all the time, the ball don't lie. And Clemens's stats in his declining years in baseball don't tell the story of an aging great whose body can't hold up against the strain: They tell the tale of someone who, against entropy and all common sense, managed to stave off the aging process long enough to pick up a couple World Series wins, Cy Young awards and hundreds of millions.

But that would only be part of the tale. The rest of it isn't as exciting as the Mitchell Report, or watching baseball titans like Clemens and Mark McGwire humbly schlep to Washington for some long-deserved scrutiny on their garish records and paydays. That's because the rest of the tale is about the science, rather than the hype, of HGH.

And like the ball before it, the science don't lie.

Let's get unequivocal: HGH is highly capable of increasing lean muscle mass, overall metabolism, calcium retention, skin elasticity, bone mineralization, protein synthesis and even homeostasis, which is to say, some of the most important aspects of physical development. It can also significantly decrease fat mass, which, these days, is almost as important a psychological development as a physical one. Bodybuilders are entranced by its ability to turn them into behemoths, and pro athletes love the way it has proven to help them recover from their injuries. But it doesn't stop there: According to acolytes, it can even increase the sex drive, offer better REM sleep and stimulate the immune system. Its benefits, such as they, are nevertheless socially legitimized by its meteoric rise, as around 300,000 weekend warriors, pro athletes and Average Janes and Joes spend an estimated $2 billion on it annually, in the process increasing the stock of companies like Pfizer, Genentech, Merck, Lilly and onward, who sell synthetic versions of the naturally occurring hormone over the counter.

But, as a Stanford University study released in March 2008 explained, that doesn't mean that taking HGH will in any way make you an athlete as capable as Clemens, or even Stallone. Which makes sense: Just because you're huge doesn't mean you can actually hit a 90 mph fastball or tackle Tom Brady. As scientists continually take pains to remind us, everything depends on the details, and those vary by person. What the science does know, however, is that extended use can have adverse effects, from diabetes and joint inflammation to high blood pressure, heart failure and perhaps cancer.

"What we found suggested that it didn't help, and at some point, it might hurt," the study's lead investigator Hau Liu told the San Jose Mercury News shortly after it was published in Monday's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. "In addition," Liu explained in the study's conclusion, "growth hormone in the healthy young is frequently associated with adverse events."

But even Liu admits there are too many caveats in the Stanford study for it to be a convincing case, something that seems to occur with regularity when it comes to the scientific community and growth hormone. For one, the study analyzed smaller doses than those taken by professional athletes, and it considered only HGH alone, rather than its efficacy in muscle cocktails making the rounds of stadiums, locker rooms and gyms near you. Those cocktails include everything from insulin to anabolic steroids to other hormones and beyond, which, when mixed together, can achieve a cumulative result unattainable by reliance upon one substance.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hgh, human growth hormone, testosterone, sylvester stallone

Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm.com. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"No One Really Knows If LSD Is Bad for You..."
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 25, 2008 12:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In our society, it's okay to take drugs that alter your body, and it's okay to take drugs that alter your mind - except when it isn't. We use a lot of drugs in this country, both legal and illegal, for all kinds of reasons - and whether the drugs are legal or not seems to have little to do with public health (tobacco and alcohol being leading examples of deadly drugs).

LSD is a serotonin mimic that interacts with various brain receptors, some involved in sensory perception. Somehow, the drug interferes with normal sensory perception, leading to visual and auditory hallucinations that are influenced by the subject's overall mental and emotional state. The drug is not addictive but can be extremely disorienting and/or disturbing to the unprepared or unstable subject - to the point of reckless or suicidal behavior - and, of course, any illicit preparation may be contaminated. There are a whole class of similar compounds, most famously psilocybin and mescaline.

You also won't see any human trials on the safety or side effects of such drugs - they are all regulated as "Schedule I" under DEA rules - no medical use - which is not strictly true, as they've been used for treatment of alcoholism with good results. Word is, they are also very good for teaching people 3-D visualization skills.

Human growth hormone is also potent. One review says this about its effects:

"Growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) are potent regulators of muscle mass. Transgenic mice that over-express these proteins exhibit dramatically enlarged skeletal muscles. In contrast, malnutrition, critical illness, sepsis, and aging are all associated with a dramatic reduction in muscle mass and function. The circulating concentration of IGF-I and the expression of IGF-I in skeletal muscle are also reduced during catabolic states. Consequently, GH has been used clinically to increase lean body mass in patients with muscle wasting. Likewise, delivery of IGF-I specifically into muscle has been proposed as a genetic therapy for muscle disorders."

Should people be allowed access to HGH? Should people be allowed access to LSD? The questions are not so dissimilar - it's all about regulation of drugs by governments, isn't it? To what extent can a well-informed public be trusted to choose what substances they want to ingest? Keep in mind here that prescription pharmaceuticals are heavily advertised these days (which should be illegal), and the public is often uninformed of the real risks they are taking with things like Oxycontin and Valium (as in the case of Heath Ledger).

There are certain risks in being a human guinea pig for HGH - just ask the ex-members of the East German woman's swim team, whose coaches secretly were administering testosterone. Side effects included liver cancer, organ damage, psychological defects, hormonal changes and infertility. At the very least, you'd want to be under a doctor's close supervision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

how gay
Posted by: bitsfick on Mar 25, 2008 3:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that picture?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» it's as gay as you perceive it. Posted by: counterpoint
Sport is for the masses
Posted by: robchapman on Mar 25, 2008 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Professional sport is one of the great excesses of this age. That thousands pack into stadiuns to watch gifted atheletes is exciting. That television can carry contests into the homes and pubs of those unable to attend is remarkable.

But professional sports does not exist in this benign form. If a sports stadium has empty seats, contests are not televised in the home market. Professional athletes are not talented locals, rather they are highly trained mercenaries.

Normal people have no role in sports but to buy endorsed products. This is not right.

Performance enhancing drugs make the mercs bigger, stronger and fleeter than anyone else.

The use of performance enhancing drugs commodifies the atheletes and is a significant contributing factor in the commercialization of sport.

By reducing the issue of performance enhancing drugs to an issue of the medical status of the athlete, Alter-Net has sold out to the concept that marketability is the only pertinent measure of value in public debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

decades of research show it is not
Posted by: drblack on Mar 25, 2008 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The naturally occurring substance Human Growth hormone has been studied for decades.
It is only bad for young people who have not achieved their full long bone growth.
HGH is not like Anabolic steroids. It will not make a person perform better than they did at their peak.
HGH is only effective in older people. It is a true anti-aging miracle. It will make a 65 year old have the muscle mass they had at 35.
HGH like all drugs should be freely available at reasonable prices.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it's my body
Posted by: Joe on Mar 25, 2008 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ill do my own research and take my own chances. i don't need some supposed "expert" sitting at the government altar telling me no like im their child. on one hand the government complains about the us being an unhealthy obese society, but on the other hand if you attempt to do anything about it other than go through the pharmaceutical companies with their failed weight loss products the government tell you NO.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: it's my body Posted by: mcstewey
» RE: it's my body Posted by: inverse_agonist
I want the gay drug!
Posted by: jeffreytaos on Mar 25, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just thought I would throw in the"gay" word! I want it! Where do I get it. I am 47 and yes, concerned with skin elasticity and muscle mass. I have always been thin and in good shape, but I want to try this drug. Where do I get it? If ten percent of high school kids can get it, it must not be that difficult. Should I try to buy it on the internet. I'd love to see how it could improve my life. Perhaps it would give me the motivation to build up this body while I still can. Information is welcome. How do I get it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beware of External Hormones
Posted by: drricklippin on Mar 25, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are different than other substances and other drugs. In even small doses overtime they can be dangerous.

As far as the libertarian view of "it' my body" that ends when I start paying for YOUR health care

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Beware of External Hormones Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Beware of External Hormones Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: Beware of External Hormones Posted by: tommy_slothrop
Informed choices
Posted by: everton9 on Mar 25, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People should only be free to put into their body whatever they want if they are able to make an informed choices. Since "no one really knows if HGH is bad for you" I don't see how it would be possible for anyone to make an informed choice. With this being the case, they weigh the options of being cut, getting chicks, or making millions playing professional sports against some sort of nebulous claim about maybe possibly adverse health effects.

If anything, the fact the we do not understand the long term effects of HGH should be greater reason for banning its use, especially in kids. At least with alcohol, tobacco, etc. people know that what they are putting in their bodies is bad for them, and for some this may cause them to moderate their consumption. For these, you can make in informed decision. Though I have not read the research, if the article is true and we are unsure about HGH, then it is impossible to make an informed decision about its use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Informed choices Posted by: Morphizm
» RE: Informed choices Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Informed choices Posted by: Morphizm
American Insanity
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 25, 2008 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The same people that rant about second hand smoke will go put this BS in their bodies, not to mention other insanity like going to tanning booths and thinking they will not get cancer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: American Insanity Posted by: bornxeyed
A good night's rest will help your body generate natural HGH.
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 25, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No need to buy those god awful pills !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why accept the potential risks associated with HGH?
Posted by: joeunix on Mar 25, 2008 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever heard of a weight set? That's what I use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In all fairness . . .
Posted by: Scientz on Mar 25, 2008 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . as another posted already mentioned, there are a lot of things we don't know the long-term effects of. Why shit on HGH?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Much to consider healthwise
Posted by: myownwings on Mar 25, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been following these HGH stories for several weeks. Time to share a personal experience. Both my husband and I had significant enough HGH depletion to warrant medical intervention with injected HGH. (That is the only real HGH - pills and such are HGH production boosters but not HGH.) Believe me, the results one would expect from reading these accounts do not happen very often and the HGH brings its own set of troubles. Both of us were well over 50 when we took HGH. I had to stop within months due to side-effects including night terrors and disturbing bouts of other symtoms. I was lucky. My husband used HGH for five or six years and now has diabetes and was suffering from muscle pain throughout his experience. Neither of us lost a pound due to the HGH and increased muscle mass was not a result by any measurable means. So mind over matter, folks. When people take HGH along with a zillion supplements and have time to engage in muscle building exercise to the max and throw in a bit of plastic surgery, you can look as though this stuff is magic. Years of use with children with HGH problems and now with adults with the same show another picture that more likely show the results of HGH in most people. My point? Don't feel bad that you can't inject HGH every day. Be healthy in so many other ways that are available and have no side effects other than to make you feel good about how well you take care of yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Never happy with what you have!
Posted by: The Big Raven on Mar 25, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No wonder these bastards can get away with starting fake wars and all they do. They know the north american secret that the average citizen can be talk into anything base on thier WEAK EGOS.
How come you folks who are willing to take shit that does not BELONG in you in the first place?
And as far studies are concerned they are CONTROLLED by the SAME companies that want to SELL this SHIT to you all suckers who really need help in learning to accept themselfs as they are not as the ad companies see you....
And just like the warmongers have twisted the truth to get people to support this phoney war they are doing the same with the drug companies for years now using the same fear tactics the terrorists they use here are time and the effects of time on the human body.
Dont any of you remeber how many "drugs" were ok'ed for human use only to be taken off the shelves years later when somebody finally decides to tell the truth???????
Face facts men you dont need too have a body like slys with a enternal varaga hard-on at sixty five you just need to quit beleiving everything "they " tell you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

no one knows?
Posted by: jayteapee on Mar 25, 2008 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if no one know if it's bad for us, why is this in the article:

"What the science does know, however, is that extended use can have adverse effects, from diabetes and joint inflammation to high blood pressure, heart failure and perhaps cancer."

doesn't sound good to me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: no one knows? Posted by: myownwings
» RE: no one knows? Posted by: davesilvan
Hyper Masculinity and the Body
Posted by: mcstewey on Mar 25, 2008 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we surprised that boys and men will do anything to try and look like the bulked up sport star or the muscular entertainer? We are cultivating an "image of manhood" that is becoming very dangerous physically and psychologically. Asking if HGH is good or bad is one question, asking why we are unnaturally changing our hormones so we can look and feel different is a better question. What is wrong with us?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HEALING hormone
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 25, 2008 3:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Growth hormone [GH] is needed for healing as well as for
growing. GH enabled the movie star and the baseball player to
continue working when otherwise they would have had to retire.
The GH enabled them to heal the insults of aging so that they
could work longer. The choice is: would you rather live 100
years and be forced to retire because of your physical condition at
60 or would you rather live 99 years but be able to continue
working until you are 80? I suspect that most of us would choose
the second alternative. If we re-named it Healing Hormone [HH]
would Congress be less prejudiced against it? GH or HH is used
as medicine to heal persistent/unhealing wounds. Eleven year
olds have survived wounds that would kill a person of any other
age. GH is also the injury survival hormone. You have more of
it at age 11 than at any other age.

Congress may be influenced by health insurance companies who
don't want to pay for GH/HH. That is another reason to go for a
single payer government health insurance like the Canadians have.

I would prefer a secretagogue if possible because use of an actual
hormone may over time reduce the size of the gland that makes
the hormone. Taking an artificial hormone may make you need
to continue taking it. That is OK if you can afford it. GH must
be injected, another reason to prefer a secretagogue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Welcome to The Frontier Medical Institutes of Colorado
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 25, 2008 4:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://liv4evr.com/learn_more/clinics.php

Anti-aging Medicine (including natural hormone replacement)
Anti-aging medicine approaches the “inevitable” decline of health and
faculties accompanying the later stages of life as a disease state. We,
along with many other physicians and scientists, now believe it is
possible to maintain youthful vigor into the mature decades of life,
thanks to recent advances in the brand new field of anti-aging
medicine. Through the use of natural hormone replacement,
including human growth hormone, by restoring the levels of these
hormones to those found in our youth, we are often able to help slow
down or even reverse the clock. Patients presenting to our clinics for
anti-aging medicine undergo an extensive series of tests to pinpoint
precisely what areas of life and lifestyle could be modified to best
restore youthful vigor and energy. We employ specialized testing to
determine biological age and then design an individualized program
of diet, exercise, nutritional supplementation, detoxification and
hormone replacement for each person. Special arrangements are
made to consolidate our complete testing for out-of-town visitors.

George W. Bush does not want YOU to know about this. You might
collect too much retirement annuity. You might not die on schedule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOOOOONG life expectancies
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 25, 2008 4:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference the book: "Power, sex, suicide: mitochondria and the
meaning life" by Nick Lane. Published: Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2005. Seagulls live 150 years because
they have better mitochondria. Seagulls don't show their age
except by getting clumsy. They die of a really bad crash landing.
Scaled up to human size, that would be 300 years of life before
becoming terminally clumsy. According to Nick Lane, all we
need to live 300 years is seagull mitochondria and a change of
very few codons in our nuclei to accommodate the new
mitochondria. Cloning techniques should enable this change
soon. Nick Lane says the optimal number of genes is in the
mitochondria already and gives good reasons why.

Aubrey de Grey disputes Nick Lane's hypothesis that birds have
better mitochondria DNA and says that bird mitochondria DNA is
the same as ours but cleaner. Some anti-aging researchers
predict human life spans of 5000 years. In either case, it seems
that much longer life expectancies are just around the corner.

This is one more proof that, if we were designed by a god, we
were designed by a god who flunked engineering. A god who
can't get a passing grade in engineering should hang up his license
to practice creation. Who needs a god like that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes we do know if HGH is good or bad for you.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 25, 2008 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Growth hormone is a natural part of the human body. We can't
grow to adult size or heal wounds or recover from diseases
without it. GH is part of the endocrine system. It is true that the
endocrine system is complex. Complexity does not make GH
bad, but it may make the subject too difficult for Congress.
Congress should mind its own business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GH DOES NOT cause cancer
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 25, 2008 4:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But if you already have cancer, GH could make the cancer grow
faster. Likewise for the other so-called side effects. I suspect
that the real problem is that Scott Thill, being a humanities
graduate, probably with a BA in English Literature, cannot really
understand what the scientists are saying. Sugar pills may have
the same side effects. How would you know whether or not
supplemental GH delayed or speeded up the onset of Type 2
diabetes? You wouldn't at this point in history. My guess is that
supplemental GH delayed the onset of Type 2 diabetes, but the
patient had no idea that he already had metabolic syndrome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War on GH is part of the War on Science and War on YOU.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 25, 2008 5:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "The Republican War on Science" by Chris
Mooney, 2005, Basic Books. It has the following URLs:
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php
http://www.chriscmooney.com/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05268/576883.stm

See also:
"Undermining Science, suppression and distortion in the
Bush Administration" by Seth Shulman, 2006

"The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney says:

"Because Trofim Lysenko convinced Josef Stalin that
genetics is wrong, 12 million people died of starvation.
The coal companies convinced President George W. Bush
[and Senator Inohe] that global warming hasn't happened
and 12 hundred people died in hurricanes in 2005. For the
same reason, people died in the wildfires in Oklahoma."
12 hundred is less than 12 million, but GWB is still
comparable to Stalin. Both adopted anti-science policies
for ideological reasons and thereby murdered large numbers
of their own citizens.
George W. Bush favors a form of "democracy" called
Theocracy.
There is something that needs to be made explicit: Truth
is not determined by a vote of scientists. Scientists are not
authorities. Nature is the Only authority. There is only
one vote that counts, and Nature casts it. It isn't just "not
nice" to fool Mother Nature, it is impossible. Scientists
understand and believe this so innately that they never say
it, but other people may think that scientists wield power or
authority.
Reference: book: "Science and Immortality" by Charles B.
Paul 1980 University of California Press
The Eloges of the Paris Academy of Sciences (1699-1791)
page 99: "Science is not so much a natural as a moral
philosophy".
page 106: Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the
Only authority. When you try to disobey Nature [In
older language: "When you try to tell God how to run the
Universe".], the result is less subtle than a train wreck: The
rocket explodes on the launch pad. Oklahomans die in
wild fires when it should be winter. The Gulf coast suffers
the worst hurricane season ever. Tornado season extends
into January.
Book: "The Long Summer, How Climate Changed
Civilization" by Brian Fagan 2004 Basic Books
Summary: Small climate changes caused the fall of many
civilizations.

The Religious Right is also giving a war on Science, trying
to convince people that Evolution is wrong and trying to
prevent the teaching of Science in school. As we all know,
religion is caused by mental illness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are natural anabolic activators which are just as good
Posted by: skepticgod on Mar 25, 2008 8:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello all: Now on the markets there are natural anabolic activtators which are just as good as illegal steroids. I only take whey protein, creatine, glutamine and anabol-5, and I am getting results. The problem is that weight training requires a lot of will to power too, it is not only a physical-strength thing.

Nutrex just came out with a good one, it's called Anabol-5:

Nutrex ANABOL 5 120 CAPS

MAXIMUM ANABOLISM
with Multi-Phase™ Technology

ANABOL-5 is the world’s strongest non-steroidal anabolic agent. By creating a highly anabolic and anti-catabolic environment ANABOL-5 dramatically increases the amount of protein a muscle can synthesize. When used in combination with intense weight training the pronounced adaptogenic properties of ANABOL-5 stimulate overall anabolism, block the breakdown of muscle protein and combat muscular fatigue. ANABOL-5 is the first product to effectively boost the body’s own protein building cycle on a non-hormonal non steroidal level. To keep anabolism high throughout the entire day ANABOL-5 consists of fast acting and extended release multi-phase capsules.

Phase #1 Fast-Acting Liquid Capsule Anabolic Response System: The outer liquid capsule of ANABOL-5 ensures that your body is in an anabolic muscle-building state within minutes of taking it. This is especially crucial after waking up in the morning and upon completing your workout session.

Phase #2 Extended Release Inside Capsule Anabolic Amplifier: By selectively putting some of the ingredients into a separate capsule, we have greatly extended the anabolic activity level. Once the crucial and fast-acting anabolic surge of phase #1 has reached your muscles, the long-acting anabolic properties of phase #2 take over.


#1 Anabolic Agent For The Aspiring Athlete

Upregulates Your Body’s Own Protein Building Cycle

Strongest Non-Steroidal Anabolic Muscle-Building Agent

Multi-Phase Capsule Technology: Fast-Acting and Extended Release Anabolism

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HGH ?
Posted by: cherylsass123 on Mar 26, 2008 3:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for guys like stallone and that other goon whom have their brains located down behind their zipper fly and big luscles to make up for the lack of any in their skulls!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HGH ? Posted by: davesilvan
HGH doesn't do anything for most...
Posted by: radiomorning on Mar 26, 2008 3:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It will work for Sly because he is old and doesn't make much of the stuff naturally anymore. More youthful bodies already have as much of the stuff as they can use anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In an Acorn-Shell
Posted by: talkville on Apr 1, 2008 4:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody really knows. What we have gathered under the name "Knowledge" is always provisional and there is nothing whatsoever, including HGH, that can be claimed to "be good" only. A claim of that sort is simply un-sustainable; it will engage us in a whirly-gig of logic that, like Ouriboros, will "eat its own tail" and swallow itself up and will terminate in a faith-based and unprovable claim.

It seems "the jury's still out on HGH" as far as testing and research into its positive or negative effects on any particular human organism. What alerts me to be cautious however iis when one is confronted by evangelizing such as that carried out by Stallone and which is carried forward by zeal and enthusiasm based on his own experiences with the substance. Each must make their own choices in this regard; each is responsible for their own decisions. But most especially in this Age of neo-liberal and 'free-market' fetishism, ANY time anyone is "pitching" or "selling" or otherwise offering a product for my consumption, I become very, very cautious not to say downright suspicious.

As far as deciding on this, I'd rather wait for some more reporting from various sources as to the substances behavior in the rest of my organic processes. I'm not much of a Band-Wagoner. In front of the fetishizing of The New and in using external and artificial means of enhancing the human being, it seems to me, at least, that careful distinctions need to be made with regard to such things as the difference between "feeling strong" and "being strong", there's no necessary Identity there.

Just an opinion. Pursuing truth and pursuing happiness don't lead necessarily in the same directions; each of us decides. Humans are good, humans are bad; growth is good, growth is bad; hormones are good, hormones are bad. Marketing is Marketing is Marketing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]