In 1990 a research report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and became the Holy Grail for future anti-aging medication. The study included only twenty-one healthy men, ages sixty-one to eighty-one. Twelve received injections of HGH for just six months, while nine served as controls. The results of this tiny study were proclaimed by many of the anti-aging clinics, web sites and dubious, quickly formed companies that sell products claiming to increase growth hormone as the legitimization of HGH therapy for all the woes of aging!.
In 1996 a double-blind study of HGH was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Here 52 healthy men over age sixty-nine received HGH or a placebo for six months. Those treated with HGH did not lose weight but their fat content decreased and muscle mass increased. There was no corresponding increase in their muscle strength or intellectual skills and memories, nor did they feel happier. However, compared with the placebo group they did have more frequent side effects such as swollen legs and pain in their joints that was severe enough for a quarter of them to have their dose reduced or stopped.
In 1998, Science carried a report on growth hormone research involving the Physicians Health Study. Men who had naturally high levels of HGH were 4.3 times more likely to develop prostate cancer than men who had the lowest amounts.
In 2001, the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism published a six-month double-blind, placebo controlled trial of HGH. At last, this included forty-six healthy women, some taking hormone replacement therapy, as well as sixty-four men. The average age was 72. It was found that neither growth hormones nor hormone replacement therapy, nor both together, reduced abdominal fat in women, whereas HGH with or without testosterone did reduce abdominal fat by 7 to 16 percent in men.
Finally, in 2002, another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association examined the effect of six months of HGH with and without hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on fifty-seven women and seventy-four men age 65 to 88. The women treated with growth hormone averaged a 2.2 pound increase in their muscle mass, if they took HRT alone they did even better. HRT and HGH gave them a 4.5 pound benefit. But with or without these hormones, there was no significant improvement in their strength or cardiovascular endurance (as measured with a treadmill). The men seemed to have a greater response to HGH, showing marginal improvement in their strength and endurance. The most concerning aspect of this study was the high rate of side effects. Thirty-nine percent of women treated with HGH had swelling, 46 percent, joint pain, and 38 percent had carpal tunnel symptoms. Diabetes and glucose intolerance developed more often after HGH treatment in men than in women but occurred in both.
Overall, it would appear that men have a greater response to HGH than women, and do achieve marginal improvements in muscle mass, strength and endurance.
However, these studies show that this is probably no more than what they would have achieved by exercising three times per week for six months.
PLEASE NOTE: The information in this column should not be construed as providing specific medical advice, but rather to offer readers information to better understand their lives and health. It is not intended to provide an alternative to professional treatment or to replace the services of a physician.
