Growth Hormone Drug of Coice or Over-Hyped?
GH update, 2019. I published this blog post in 2008 which summarized GH nicely, which was in line with what I told people about GH at the time; it?s widely over hyped and overrated. Fast forward to 2019, another large review of the studies, and the conclusion the same, it?s terrible anabolic.
They conclude: ?The increase in lean body mass is due to an accumulation of extracellular water.?
I was curious to see if after over a decade of additional research if the findings on GH had changed at all. Nope. That?s not to say GH is worthless. It?s highly lipolytic for one thing, and in some populations, such as GH deficient older adults and such, has its uses. It also comes with a long list of potential side effects, so proper management and dosing is essential for those using it for say anti aging purposes without issues.
However, as a hormones used by young healthy active athletes looking to add muscle, improve performance, etc, it?s worthless for that use and widely overrated, no to mention ridiculously expensive. Combined with other hormones (a topic for another post perhaps?) it appears to have some synergy with TRT, but alone, it?s far from the super duper anabolic muscle builder some think it is. I do feel it may have some value in connective tissue treatment. Now if actual injections of GH don?t build muscle, the OTC ?GH boosters? are less than worthless. OTC GH boosters seem like a category that refuses to die!
Human Growth Hormone: The Mother Of Over-Hyped Hormones
If there?s one over hyped misunderstood hormone out there, it?s human growth hormone (HGH). It?s constantly pushed as the mother of all anabolic hormones and mentioned in virtually every supplement add and every news story about athletes of all kind.
Readers of my ebooks and articles know I can consider it highly overrated in terms of what it can do for building muscle or improving athletic performance. GH has greater effects as a hormone that can improve recoup vs. directly impact performance per se, can have uses healing connective tissue injuries, and when combined with other hormones/drugs, appears to have synergism, although data is lacking there.
In terms of it?s ability to directly impact athletic performance, an extensive review of the literature recently published entitled ?Systematic review: the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance? essentially came to the same conclusions as I have. The authors specifically evaluated evidence about the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance in physically fit, young individuals, so they were not looking at studies in GH deficient populations (e.g., older populations, etc.) which usually find benefits of using this hormone.
The authors reviewed a pile of studies which met a their inclusion criteria of randomized, controlled trials that ?compared growth hormone treatment with no growth hormone treatment in community-dwelling healthy participants between 13 and 45 years of age.?
What they found after reviewing all these studies, was that on average, ?lean body mass increased in growth hormone recipients compared with participants who did not receive growth hormone.? However, that increase in LBM only averaged 2.1 kg, or 4.62lbs. Not exactly impressive gains in LBM, considering what HGH costs or compared to even what a supplement like creatine can achieve!
More importantly, from all the studies they reviewed ?strength and exercise capacity did not seem to improve? and ?Growth hormone-treated participants more frequently experienced soft tissue edema and fatigue than did those not treated with growth hormone.?
It should be noted however that few studies looked directly at HGH effects on athletic performance directly, and the studies may not have reflected ?real world? doses, but the above does not bode well for GH in my view, and this review does little to improve my opinion of HGH as a stand alone drug for improving performance in healthy athletes. Bang for the buck, it?s a highly overrated hormone for that use. The authors concluded
?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.?
All in all, a fair assessment on their part in my view?
Sources:
Systematic review: the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance. Ann Intern Med. 2008 May 20;148(10):747-58. Epub 2008 Mar 17.
Effect of Growth Hormone Administration on the Mass and Strength of Muscles in Healthy Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis J. Human Phys. July 2019, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 452?460
Abstract
The growth hormone (GH) is prohibited for use by athletes, while its anabolic effect on muscle tissue is still debated. The review provides a systematic evaluation of the GH effects on the body composition and strength parameters in well-trained healthy young subjects.
A meta-analysis of published data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Pooled results of 11 RCTs showed that GH administration significantly increases the lean body mass (2.72, 95% CI: 2.02; 3.38, p < 0.01), total water content (1.10, 95% CI: 0.54; 1.66, p < 0.01), and extracellular water (1.78, 95% CI: 1.04; 2.52, p < 0.01) and reduces the fat mass (?0.67, 95% CI: ?0.93; ?0.40, p < 0.01) without changing the muscle protein synthesis rate (0.00, 95% CI: ?0.01; 0.02, p = 0.70) and muscle strength (?0.02, 95% CI: ?0.05; 0.02, p = 0.36) as compared with placebo.
A conclusion was made that GH administration can improve the body composition in healthy young subject by exerting a significant lipolytic effect without causing hypertrophy of muscle fibers. The increase in lean body mass is due to an accumulation of extracellular water.
GH update, 2019. I published this blog post in 2008 which summarized GH nicely, which was in line with what I told people about GH at the time; it?s widely over hyped and overrated. Fast forward to 2019, another large review of the studies, and the conclusion the same, it?s terrible anabolic.
They conclude: ?The increase in lean body mass is due to an accumulation of extracellular water.?
I was curious to see if after over a decade of additional research if the findings on GH had changed at all. Nope. That?s not to say GH is worthless. It?s highly lipolytic for one thing, and in some populations, such as GH deficient older adults and such, has its uses. It also comes with a long list of potential side effects, so proper management and dosing is essential for those using it for say anti aging purposes without issues.
However, as a hormones used by young healthy active athletes looking to add muscle, improve performance, etc, it?s worthless for that use and widely overrated, no to mention ridiculously expensive. Combined with other hormones (a topic for another post perhaps?) it appears to have some synergy with TRT, but alone, it?s far from the super duper anabolic muscle builder some think it is. I do feel it may have some value in connective tissue treatment. Now if actual injections of GH don?t build muscle, the OTC ?GH boosters? are less than worthless. OTC GH boosters seem like a category that refuses to die!
Human Growth Hormone: The Mother Of Over-Hyped Hormones
If there?s one over hyped misunderstood hormone out there, it?s human growth hormone (HGH). It?s constantly pushed as the mother of all anabolic hormones and mentioned in virtually every supplement add and every news story about athletes of all kind.
Readers of my ebooks and articles know I can consider it highly overrated in terms of what it can do for building muscle or improving athletic performance. GH has greater effects as a hormone that can improve recoup vs. directly impact performance per se, can have uses healing connective tissue injuries, and when combined with other hormones/drugs, appears to have synergism, although data is lacking there.
In terms of it?s ability to directly impact athletic performance, an extensive review of the literature recently published entitled ?Systematic review: the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance? essentially came to the same conclusions as I have. The authors specifically evaluated evidence about the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance in physically fit, young individuals, so they were not looking at studies in GH deficient populations (e.g., older populations, etc.) which usually find benefits of using this hormone.
The authors reviewed a pile of studies which met a their inclusion criteria of randomized, controlled trials that ?compared growth hormone treatment with no growth hormone treatment in community-dwelling healthy participants between 13 and 45 years of age.?
What they found after reviewing all these studies, was that on average, ?lean body mass increased in growth hormone recipients compared with participants who did not receive growth hormone.? However, that increase in LBM only averaged 2.1 kg, or 4.62lbs. Not exactly impressive gains in LBM, considering what HGH costs or compared to even what a supplement like creatine can achieve!
More importantly, from all the studies they reviewed ?strength and exercise capacity did not seem to improve? and ?Growth hormone-treated participants more frequently experienced soft tissue edema and fatigue than did those not treated with growth hormone.?
It should be noted however that few studies looked directly at HGH effects on athletic performance directly, and the studies may not have reflected ?real world? doses, but the above does not bode well for GH in my view, and this review does little to improve my opinion of HGH as a stand alone drug for improving performance in healthy athletes. Bang for the buck, it?s a highly overrated hormone for that use. The authors concluded
?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.?
All in all, a fair assessment on their part in my view?
Sources:
Systematic review: the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance. Ann Intern Med. 2008 May 20;148(10):747-58. Epub 2008 Mar 17.
Effect of Growth Hormone Administration on the Mass and Strength of Muscles in Healthy Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis J. Human Phys. July 2019, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 452?460
Abstract
The growth hormone (GH) is prohibited for use by athletes, while its anabolic effect on muscle tissue is still debated. The review provides a systematic evaluation of the GH effects on the body composition and strength parameters in well-trained healthy young subjects.
A meta-analysis of published data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Pooled results of 11 RCTs showed that GH administration significantly increases the lean body mass (2.72, 95% CI: 2.02; 3.38, p < 0.01), total water content (1.10, 95% CI: 0.54; 1.66, p < 0.01), and extracellular water (1.78, 95% CI: 1.04; 2.52, p < 0.01) and reduces the fat mass (?0.67, 95% CI: ?0.93; ?0.40, p < 0.01) without changing the muscle protein synthesis rate (0.00, 95% CI: ?0.01; 0.02, p = 0.70) and muscle strength (?0.02, 95% CI: ?0.05; 0.02, p = 0.36) as compared with placebo.
A conclusion was made that GH administration can improve the body composition in healthy young subject by exerting a significant lipolytic effect without causing hypertrophy of muscle fibers. The increase in lean body mass is due to an accumulation of extracellular water.
