Tatyana
04-16-2009, 04:47 PM
I have done stacks of reading and research on GH as when I first heard about it I though, 'Bonus, an anti-aging hormone that has you lose fat, I might give this one a whirl'.
The studies that I have read, and they have done quite a few on athletes, measuring strength and lean tissue increases, didn't really demonstrate any significant increases.
It seems that an anabolic is necessary if you really want any growth to occur.
As far as anti-aging is concerned, while it did seem to give older chaps a boost, most didn't want to stay on growth longer than nine months due to the sides.
There may also be an issue with promoting cancer cells, and as you get older, there is a greater chance of this.
I think this hormone has potential, some people seem to love it, and there are enough people who are taking it who do swear by it.
These are my concerns with growth hormone:
The first one is the general assumption that growth hormone decreases with age.
Growth hormone production does not decrease with age. Somatotrophs (the cells that make GH), continue to make GH until we are old and grey, in fact, in autopsies, they have found that 80 year old men have as much GH in the somatotrophs as a 20 year old.
This is a fairly new hormone, so reference ranges would have been established within the last 20-40 years. If you consider the sedentary, crappy diet population they would have used to establish this reference range, I don't think it is going to apply to an active population.
The issue with GH is that it isn't released.
GH is triggered to be released with intense exercise and when we are hungry.
The second issue I have with growth hormone is that it is a recombinant hormone, which means it has been genetically engineered. There isn't anything wrong with recombinant hormones, they work quite well, the problem is that there are something like 180 different fragments of GH present in the body, but when you get synthetic GH, you are not getting all the variants, you are getting only one form.
Although there is a company that claims to developed a recombinant GH that avoids this issue, GH can also induce insulin insensitivity. This is transient, or a temporary situtation for most people, but if insulin is not working well, then amino acids and glucose are not going to get into the muscle as well, and this could actually hamper growth.
I realise most females use GH for fat burning, I am not positive of this, but I have heard that it will burn more fat around the torso, but deposit it on the arms and legs, whether or not this is true?
Oh yes, and GH is mostly made in China, and lately they have demonstrated some pretty dodgy manufacturing practices. There may also be issues with transport, as think it needs to be kept cold.
Well-being and anti-aging clinics are known to stock GH from China.
Do you think GH is worth the money?
As I stated, I think it has great potential, but I think there are a few issues with it that need to be addressed before I would consider it.
The studies that I have read, and they have done quite a few on athletes, measuring strength and lean tissue increases, didn't really demonstrate any significant increases.
It seems that an anabolic is necessary if you really want any growth to occur.
As far as anti-aging is concerned, while it did seem to give older chaps a boost, most didn't want to stay on growth longer than nine months due to the sides.
There may also be an issue with promoting cancer cells, and as you get older, there is a greater chance of this.
I think this hormone has potential, some people seem to love it, and there are enough people who are taking it who do swear by it.
These are my concerns with growth hormone:
The first one is the general assumption that growth hormone decreases with age.
Growth hormone production does not decrease with age. Somatotrophs (the cells that make GH), continue to make GH until we are old and grey, in fact, in autopsies, they have found that 80 year old men have as much GH in the somatotrophs as a 20 year old.
This is a fairly new hormone, so reference ranges would have been established within the last 20-40 years. If you consider the sedentary, crappy diet population they would have used to establish this reference range, I don't think it is going to apply to an active population.
The issue with GH is that it isn't released.
GH is triggered to be released with intense exercise and when we are hungry.
The second issue I have with growth hormone is that it is a recombinant hormone, which means it has been genetically engineered. There isn't anything wrong with recombinant hormones, they work quite well, the problem is that there are something like 180 different fragments of GH present in the body, but when you get synthetic GH, you are not getting all the variants, you are getting only one form.
Although there is a company that claims to developed a recombinant GH that avoids this issue, GH can also induce insulin insensitivity. This is transient, or a temporary situtation for most people, but if insulin is not working well, then amino acids and glucose are not going to get into the muscle as well, and this could actually hamper growth.
I realise most females use GH for fat burning, I am not positive of this, but I have heard that it will burn more fat around the torso, but deposit it on the arms and legs, whether or not this is true?
Oh yes, and GH is mostly made in China, and lately they have demonstrated some pretty dodgy manufacturing practices. There may also be issues with transport, as think it needs to be kept cold.
Well-being and anti-aging clinics are known to stock GH from China.
Do you think GH is worth the money?
As I stated, I think it has great potential, but I think there are a few issues with it that need to be addressed before I would consider it.