Talk:Growth hormone in sports

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dradtke17. Peer reviewers: SnuBru44, Hayleysmitty18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

HGH treatment for athletic enhancement

Ugh! The benefits section says the same thing over and over again: that HGH will not increase muscle strength. OK! I got it the first time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.132.22 (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

=

"use" versus "abuse"

So I changed the verb "use" to the verb "abuse" with regard to use of HGH with the intent of improving athletic performance. Note that I said "with the intent of" -- I did that because there is no definitive data showing that use of HGH for this purpose is safe and effective. So people try it with that intention. And this goes to the heart of this matter. A doctor can prescribe HGH to a patient for any purpose the doctor wants - that is part of a doctor's legal discretion. But what doctor would do that? Abuse of HGH by athletes to enhance their performance is not only against the rules of every sport, and athletes who use HGH in this way obtain it on the black market. This is the real world -- use of HGH by athletes is activity that is not only against the law but breaks the rules of the sport. The supposedly neutral verb "use" actually hides the truth. Legally, athletes who use HGH are abusing the drug.

While we are at this, we should also change the name of the article. There is no "treatment" with HGH to enhance athletic performance -- "treatment" implies care of a doctor and that is not going on here. Something like "HGH and athletic performance" would be better. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Growth hormone in sports Ng.j (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

---

HGH treatment for athletic enhancement → Growth hormone in sports — I propose that the name of this article be changed from "HGH treatment for athletic enhancement" to "HGH for athletic enhancement". The use of the word "treatment" in the title is misleading as it implies care of a doctor in the process, and abuse of HGH by athletes is generally off the grid, black market, etc, and is therefore generally both against the law and breaks the rule of sporting bodies. --Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose move I disagree that treatment implies the care of a medical doctor. Treatment has a wide variety of connotations, so it's best to take the word at face value. HGH for athletic enhancement sounds to me like a slogan, which could come across as having more of an endorsement. As an aside, I don't think we should be making a value judgment (either way) about the use of HGH for athletic (or physical) enhancement. Lulaq (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lulaq == You are right that pinning "treatment" to "doctor" is lame... there are OTC drugs (aspirin) that people treat themselves with. So let me fall back to medicine generally. I don't think one can use the noun "treatment", with regard to a drug, in a way that does not involve medicine. Medicine, in the sense of treating a disease or condition. That is its face value meaning. And abuse of HGH for athletic enhanement is not medicine. I do agree with you that "HGH for athletic enhancement" is not great. What I would like to say is "Abuse of HGH for athletic enhancement" but I figured that you would oppose that for sure. I was also thinking "HGH and athletic enhancement". I was a little leery of that as the Wiki page on article titles warns against use of "and" in titles. But what do you think of that? Or do you have another idea? Treatment should not be in the title though, as HGH is a drug and using HGH for athletic enhancement is drug abuse, not "treatment."Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It needs a head-noun other than HGH; whether that noun is treatment or use or abuse or application or .... — And I'd marginally favor ‹Noun› of HGH for over HGH ‹noun› for. —Tamfang (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• How about Growth hormone in sports? —Tamfang (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for joining Tamfang. "Growth Hormone in Sports" is great! Let's give that the 7 days and then if there are no objections, make the change.Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Tamfang's proposal, and  Done. Ng.j (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question regarding illegality

When HGH was first used as a drug for athletic enhancement, was it intitially illegal (in all relevant areas), or was it like steroids where it was legal for some time before being banned? I would argue this question should determine whether we use the word abuse vs. use (and I would also offer the option illegally using but we can get to that question a bit later after this first one is answered). Lulaq (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi lulaq - when I say "illegal" I am talking about law. In the US and I imagine other countries, if a drug is available by prescription only, obtaining it and using it without a prescription is illegal. In other words, you go to jail if you get caught. If a sport bans something, that doesn't make it illegal (as in the government will put you in jail)- it means that the sporting body can discipline you or ban you from the sport. Different things. So -- to your question. Obtaining HGH and using it without a prescription has always been illegal. With regard to sporting bodies, they have tended to make rules about performance-enhancing drugs after it becomes apparent that it is a problem; one of the issues is that they need to develop tests and testing procedures before putting rules in place. But in any case, the point I have been making about "abuse" rests mostly on the legal aspect, and as mentioned use of HGH without a prescription has always been illegal. HGH is a drug for treating medical conditions -- it is not a tool for supposedly enhancing performance. Use of HGH as an enhancement tool is an abuse -- using it for a purpose other than its intended one. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That may be the American perspective, but HGH is available over the counter in some jurisdictions. Therefore, it has not always been illegal, and if that is your definition of "abuse" improper as that definition is, this use does not solely fall under it. And, tbh, I think some HGH is produced for the ergonenic market. Baiter (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In what jurisdictions is HGH available over the counter? By "ergogenic" you mean athletic enhancement... I assume you are not talking about the US here. Please clarify!Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Available over the counter in Mexico. If you say that "HGH without a prescription has always been illegal," please clarify that you mean, "in the jurisdiction in which I presently reside." Alcohol is illegal in Saudi Arabia, but the wiki article on alcohol does not say that alcohol has always been illegal and any consumption of it is abuse (nor should it). Perhaps you can say, "The FDA considers any use for sport performance enhancement to be abuse," if you have a source for this. Baiter (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I just went looking for evidence that you can get HGH OTC in Mexico or anywhere else, and found none. What is your evidence for that? Prescription drugs are generally prescription drugs in every country where the rule of law holds. Additionally there are, in many jurisdictions, black markets in which you can get lots of stuff but not out in the open (i.e OTC). With respect to alcohol -- sure, different countries treat and have treated recreational drugs like marijuana and alcohol differently - but HGH is not a recreational drug. Alcohol is not a useful analogy. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I just googled "human growth hormone mexico over the counter" and the first few hits I checked said yes. Nothing reliable enough to quote here. If you have one that says where it is illegal, that would make a great reference on the main page. Failing that, perhaps a change to a list of where we can be sure it's illegal. Perhaps a comment about "The FDA warns against using hGh for sport-enhancement purposes." with a link, if that is a thing. Right now it reads as if some world legislature organization has passed a law against it. Baiter (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. What if the article said something like the marijuana article, "The possession, use, or sale of cannabis preparations containing psychoactive cannabinoids became illegal in most parts of the world in the early 20th century.[10]" With a reference, obviously. Only here, we would also have to add, for sport-enhancing purposes. Gives the article less of a American-centric feel, imho. Baiter (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no law that specifically names prescription drugs with respect to selling them without a prescription. The legal situation in most countries is that drugs are approved for sale in certain categories. Some (say aspirin) are in the class that you can sell over the counter, to anybody who wants it. Others are in the class, that they can only be sold to someone who has a prescription from a doctor - not to anybody who wants it. (there are other classes but these are the main two.) It is illegal to sell or obtain a prescription drug without a prescription. Now, stepping back. Few countries have a full-blown FDA-like government arm. The US has one, Europe does, and so does China. Most other countries' parallel agencies simply require that a company get approval from one of those agencies, and follow the lead of that agency with respect to how the drug can be sold legally. So most every country is aligned with respect to what you can buy OTC and what you need a prescription for. That is how it works, that buying/selling HGH over the counter is illegal in most of the world. Again, I found no evidence that you can buy HGH legitimately in Mexico over the counter, without a prescription; you need a prescription. If you find some evidence for that please cite it. Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it to say two of the places where you said it was illegal, but it could really use a reference, and I didn't include China, although that should probably be listed as well. If you would like to include other countries where it is also illegal for this purpose, I think that would improve the article. Possibly unrelated, I also deleted the "possibly unethical" comment from the main article, thinking that is is POV, unsourced, and using weasel words. Baiter (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

HI lulaq - I didn't respond to the part of your message about steroids. It is true that steroids were first brought to market as dietary supplements and were indeed legal, but that the FDA eventually removed them from the market. For instance Androstenedione (or "Andro") was banned: http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/complianceenforcement/ucm081788.htm. What went on here? Food additives and dietary supplements are each regulated by the FDA along with drugs. However, there is a much lower regulatory standard for bringing a new additive/dietary supplement to market, than there is to bring a new drug to market. For a new drug, you have to make a claim that it treats some disease or condition. Then you have to prove to the FDA that the thing you want to sell - the actual pill -- contains exactly what you say it contains -- in other words, you have to prove that your manufacturing process is nailed down solid. This is so you don't accidentally poison people. Then you have to test your drug in people, and prove that it does what you say it does -- that it actually is effective. And you have to learn what the side effects actually are (you often don't know until you test the drug in lots of people). The FDA then reviews everything and determines if the drug is safe enough, and effective enough, to be allowed onto the market (not perfectly safe nor perfectly effective - nothing is perfect).

With respect to new food additives and dietary supplements, all the company bringing the new market has to do, is to show the FDA that new chemical is reasonably safe - you can do this with simple tests in animals, and if everything looks good you can zip right to market. The FDA does not regulate what you say about the supplement or additive -- as long as you do not say it treats a disease or condition. If you do that -- say that your chemical treats a disease or condition -- you are making a "drug claim" that you have not proven, and the FDA will shut you down. The maker of a new dietary supplement or additive does not have to prove ahead of time that it has manufacturing all figured out and consistent, either. Over all it is a much easier regulatory environment. Problems have emerged in all three aspects, in the dietary supplement market. Supplements have been found to have high levels of toxic heavy metals for instance -- the manufacturing process is sometimes tainted. Companies have been punished for making drug claims, going too far in their advertising. And -- in cases like Andro and ephedra http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu/ephedraBanned.htm and certain food dyes -- sometimes it emerges that a dietary supplement or food additive is actually NOT safe and the FDA removes it from the market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 12:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Section Drawbacks

The section drawbacks contains unreasonable claims, for example compare HGH treatment with acromegaly. Somatotropin is an hormone, it means it have to be in the right concentrations, GH deficiency and excess are obviously harmful. If GH excess can harm even muscle tissue does NOT mean that GH does not promote muscle growth and it does not mean that assumption of GH did not build muscle, simply it has positive effects just when it is inside a range.

For this reason I think it is necessary to modify this section, I'm agree with the claim that sometimes the effect of GH are exagerated (for example other anabolic hormones like IGF-I, testosterone and insulin are far more powerful in increasing muscle performances), but it is obviously false the current message of this article ("the GH do not improve athletic performances").--Moscone (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Responses 1) You seem to be trying to argue from some kind of basic logic or general knowledge. However, in medicine - in science in general - you can throw all the logic you want at something, but you do not -- you CANNOT -- know if a drug is safe and effective for a given use, until you test it. You test it in a large, randomized, clinical trial. If there is no large randomized clinical trial of a drug for a given use, anything you say about it is going to be guessing. (Heck we even get surprised sometimes after the PhIII clinical trial.. sometimes bad stuff doesn't emerge until a drug has been in millions of patients.) 2) There has never been a large, randomized, clinical trial to see how HGH treatment affects the bodies of athletes. So nobody knows what it does, generally speaking. Not you, not anybody. Maybe you tried it a few times. Maybe something happened to your body that you liked. That does not mean that HGH is a safe and effective way to improve athletic performance. That means you have a nice anecdote. 3) The articles cited in the paper are peer-reviewed scientific articles. They say what they say. If you want, I can send them to you and you can read them for yourself.Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)