MSNBC Claims HGH Does Not Improve Athletic Performance - but Their Research is Terrible
steroids, crazy stories
|
Browsing the Health section of Digg.com a headline caught my eye, “Growth Hormone Doesn’t Boost Athletic Performance”. Based on the many digs it receiver, I’m sure it caught many fitness enthusiasts’ attention with that outlandish statement.
The article is based on a new study performed by Dr. Hau Liu of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, CA. Apparently, after analyzing 27 studies involving 440 participants, they discovered that those who were given HGH gained 5 pounds more muscle mass and lost about 2 pounds more fat.
The scientists involved in the study insist this difference could be due to water weight and add that the decrease in fat is not statistically significant. Furthermore, they state that there was minimal, if any, increase in muscle performance, and there was actually a decrease in muscle endurance.
Could this be true? Are the benefits of HGH a myth? Did Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds actually put themselves at a disadvantage by taking HGH?
One would think that if they breezed through reading MSNBC’s post. In fact, I initially sat down to write a blog about how crazy it is that HGH actually doesn’t improve muscle performance. But after thoroughly reading the article, I was able to dismiss this bold statement as nothing more than hype.
First off, it’s important to keep in mind that, the participants given HGH did gain 5 lbs more muscle on average, as well as burn 2 lbs more fat than those given placebo injections. But the scientists say that’s not statistically significant!
Well that makes perfect sense considering the small doses given to the HGH subjects weren’t significant either.
The article states that the tests “probably don’t reflect the dose and frequency practiced by athletes illegally using the hormone. Experiments like that aren’t likely to be conducted”.
So Dr. Hau Liu… How do you conduct a study on abusing HGH without having ANY of the subjects actually abuse HGH? Obviously there will only be a minimal, insignificant muscle mass increase if you give only minimal, insignificant doses.
But there’s more. The article also states that “their analysis included few studies that measured performance” – which confused me considering the point of the “study” was to measure both size and performance. They said there was an increase in size and a decrease in performance, but then include that they didn’t do much looking into the performance part of the study.
So all in all, they did an insignificant study which produced insignificant results (big surpise) and decided to give it a cool Headline and pretend they proved something. I'm not in favor of using HGH, but don't lie to us about what it does.
|
|
|
on 3/20/2008
|
|
|