HGH,AAS - increase the number of muscle cells?

[kralj321]

Is it only HGH that can increase the number of muscle cells?

As I understood, AAS can only make cells bigger but NOT increase the number of muscle cells(as HGH can).

[vitor]

Correct.

Other peptides like igf and mgf could create hyperplasmia(new muscle cells) to.

[MuscleScience]

HGH doesnt increase the number of muscle cells, muscle cell hyperplasia has never been proven in humans to date.

[BG]

Its believed GH splits muscle cells so Ive read.

[Towel]

i am not sure but i thought that normal gear also boosts up your GH lvls a little bit. I don't know if that increase is significant.

[IntenseAthlete]

HGH doesnt increase the number of muscle cells, muscle cell hyperplasia has never been proven in humans to date.

So were just stupid for buying into that crap.Why would HGH/igf manufactures claim this and offer case studies to support it.Well I guess we know why.To sell there products.Do you have any links or case studies to refence your claim?I would like to read them. Thanks

[Atomini]

So were just stupid for buying into that crap.Why would HGH/igf manufactures claim this and offer case studies to support it.Well I guess we know why.To sell there products.Do you have any links or case studies to refence your claim?I would like to read them. Thanks

Yes. This kind of crap goes on every minute in the bodybuilding world. People or groups making stupid claims that haven't been proven (and some of them aren't even selling anything, just pulling this shit out of their asses so they can sound smart and informative).

[Bossman]

So were just stupid for buying into that crap.Why would HGH/igf manufactures claim this and offer case studies to support it.Well I guess we know why.To sell there products.Do you have any links or case studies to refence your claim?I would like to read them. Thanks

Look at any top level pro bodybuilder. They all use large amounts of HGH. They are bigger then ever before because of it. I dont need any case studies, the pros and the trainers to the pros know what works. If you dont think HGH works, you havent used enough of it.

[IntenseAthlete]

Look at any top level pro bodybuilder. They all use large amounts of HGH. They are bigger then ever before because of it. I dont need any case studies, the pros and the trainers to the pros know what works. If you dont think HGH works, you havent used enough of it.

bro, Im on your side.Wanted to see where that conclusion was made final.I believe it works too.For me even in low doses.Athlete not BB still like results.

[MuscleScience]

So were just stupid for buying into that crap.Why would HGH/igf manufactures claim this and offer case studies to support it.Well I guess we know why.To sell there products.Do you have any links or case studies to refence your claim?I would like to read them. Thanks

HGH works, I never said it didnt it just doesnt appear to work in the mechanism that has been suggested in this thread.

It can cause visceral organs to increase in size due to increase in number of cells. It also increases IGF-1 which is also increased by steroids . IGF-1 directly inhibits the secretion of HGH. HGH works at building muscle the same way steroids do, by increasing protein synthesis and maintaining a postitive nitrogen balance in muscle cells. However there is a difference in muscle cell Hyperplasia, and muscle cell Hypertrophy.

I am not saying muscle cell hyperplasia doesnt exist, there just hasnt been any study that was able to show with repeatablity that in occurs in humans.

As far as referencing studies, its considered common knowledge in the exercise physiology field so I don't have a specific study sitting on my desk that I can reference. However if you do a literature search yourself you will quickly become frustrated to find anything to support the idea that it exist in skeletal muscle. The only thing you will really find is over smooth muscle hyperplasia which is considered to be someone common especially in hypertensive individuals.


Also if you think its hard to tell if a muscle cell or any cell for that matter is splitting into two new cells you would be wrong. It is very easy to tell when a cell is undergoing division by simple staining procedures. What you look for are enzymes and factors that cause a cell to undergo a process called mitosis. These are fairly well defined across most cell types and have been for sometime. To add to that if you looked at a unstained cells undergoing mitosis you will see 23 pairs of big black rods somewhere in the the tissue samples. These are the mitotic chromosomes migrating to the new two new cells that have formed.

[IntenseAthlete]

HGH works, I never said it didnt it just doesnt appear to work in the mechanism that has been suggested in this thread.

It can cause visceral organs to increase in size due to increase in number of cells. It also increases IGF-1 which is also increased by steroids . IGF-1 directly inhibits the secretion of HGH. HGH works at building muscle the same way steroids do, by increasing protein synthesis and maintaining a postitive nitrogen balance in muscle cells. However there is a difference in muscle cell Hyperplasia, and muscle cell Hypertrophy.

I am not saying muscle cell hyperplasia doesnt exist, there just hasnt been any study that was able to show with repeatablity that in occurs in humans.

As far as referencing studies, its considered common knowledge in the exercise physiology field so I don't have a specific study sitting on my desk that I can reference. However if you do a literature search yourself you will quickly become frustrated to find anything to support the idea that it exist in skeletal muscle. The only thing you will really find is over smooth muscle hyperplasia which is considered to be someone common especially in hypertensive individuals.


Also if you think its hard to tell if a muscle cell or any cell for that matter is splitting into two new cells you would be wrong. It is very easy to tell when a cell is undergoing division by simple staining procedures. What you look for are enzymes and factors that cause a cell to undergo a process called mitosis. These are fairly well defined across most cell types and have been for sometime.

So what you saying is if these types of benifits(cell splitting/hyperplasia) are happening.They would be easy to document since the process has been defined for sometime?

[BG]

I look for the studies which state the splitting of cells.

[IntenseAthlete]

and you found they did split?

[MuscleScience]

So what you saying is if these types of benifits(cell splitting/hyperplasia) are happening.They would be easy to document since the process has been defined for sometime?

Relatively speaking it is easy to tell when it is happening. In the case of human studies a muscle biopsy it taking. Usually from the vastus lateralis muscle, due to is ease of biopsy and low chance of hitting a nerve or large blood vessels but other muscles can be sampled. In animal studies the animal is usually sacrificed and the entire muscle is taken. Animal studies also have the added benefit that some animals such as cats seem to be able to easily be induced to undergo hyperplasia and that some muscle groups are more likely to be able to do it within a certain species.

I should point out that there are a few studies that have shown some evidence that hyperplasia can occur in humans. One that is most notable is one that was carried out on bodybuilders that showed very limited amounts of hyperplasia at the attachment points of the biceps muscle. This has been dubbed end on end muscle cell hyperplasia, which is theorized to be cause to some extent by the mechanical load placed on the muscle cells towards their boney attachments. Keep in mind this is not considered a true hyperplasia because there was no additions of a nucleated cell. Remember that skeletal muscle cells are usually multi-nucleated and are continuous throughout the lenght of the muscle. More so that an extra partition was created to cope with added mechanical stress. Biopsy's of the actually muscle belly were not shown to have undergone any change.

Dont even ask me to reference that one, its a classic but I have no Idea who the authors were. It came out about ten or so years ago and has been reference in a few physiology text books but I couldnt tell you were to find it unless you have access to a university library database I dont think you could find it.

[IntenseAthlete]

So HGH does not cause hyperplasia, and works like steroids with protein synthesis and maintaining a postitive nitrogen balance(hypertrophy)So where are all these claims founded from if there is no definetive evidence supporting hyperplasia?

[MuscleScience]

So HGH does not cause hyperplasia, and works like steroids with protein synthesis and maintaining a postitive nitrogen balance(hypertrophy)So where are all these claims founded from if there is no definetive evidence supporting hyperplasia?

Most likely animal studies, or small scale humans studies that show some but not conclusive evidence. But I would say most likely animal studies. Believe me if there was a big time study that was repeatable it would be a huge deal and we would all know about it. The health implications would make it of noble consideration if indeed a process could be found to manipulate skeletal muscle cells to increase in number in humans

[pigrond]

damn that sucks ive been saving up for some hgh on the idea of actually growing new muscle .guess there is still some benefits to using it .i will wait a few more years for now
test will have to do

[fdrx7man]

is it true u can import HGH at 3 month supplies legally? and customs wont even bother ya as long as its 3 months supply and lower?

[IntenseAthlete]

is it true u can import HGH at 3 month supplies legally? and customs wont even bother ya as long as its 3 months supply and lower?

Dude high jack somewhere else or at least relate it to the topic.Shipping ,customs,and Hyperplasia.That is synergistic man! Your like a word "genious"

[IntenseAthlete]

Most likely animal studies, or small scale humans studies that show some but not conclusive evidence. But I would say most likely animal studies. Believe me if there was a big time study that was repeatable it would be a huge deal and we would all know about it. The health implications would make it of noble consideration if indeed a process could be found to manipulate skeletal muscle cells to increase in number in humans

If hgh has no hyperplasia "power".Then its a mild anti-aging/fat burning/recovery steroid .One could take some test, a thermoginic stim and some slin to acomplish similar if not better results?Do you believe this statement to be fair or is the whole hyperplasia not the basis for HGH's anabolic ability.If I can use anabolic to describe HGH.

[MuscleScience]

The mechanism that HGH works on is specific to a particular cell type. Each cell in the body has different genes that are expressed based on how that cell differentiates embryonically. Once a cell matures and because an "adult cell type" it can no longer go back to an earlier more primitive cell type. The exception being stem cells, and satelite cells in muscles tissue which are their own can of worms. Once this happens the cell will only express the characteristics for the particular tissue that it has been designed for. So in the case of muscle cells they lose the ability to under go mitosis.

HGH, is a very broad acting hormone that has effects on many cell types. Not all hormones are this broad. For example the hormone glucagon acts very similar to the hormone epinephrine at releasing stored glycogen as glucose. However unlike epinephrine, glucagon does not work on muscle cells. It will only cause glucose to be release from the liver only. No amount of glucagon can cause the muscles to release glucose. Epinephrine causes muscle cells to break down glycogen for quick energy for the flight or fight response. It will also cause fat cells to release fatty acids for energy as well.

The reason that I mention this is that one of the main characteristics of skeletal muscle is that the stored glycogen in the muscles under no situation can be released and used to bring up glucose concentrations under fasting conditions. The same can be said for HGH and skeletal muscle cell hyperplasia. It works on a different mechanism more a kin to that of anabolics. HGH would be considered a anabolic hormone and is a great stimulator of muscle cell hyperthropy.

So yes i would say that HGH's main action has nothing at all to due with hyperplasia. Not to say that it can never happen but I don't believe its a major factor.

Now to put this whole debate in perspective, in science you can never say that something is for certain. There are instances when muscle cells can increase in number. I dont know those circumstances and to be honest I dont think that its nearly as important as muscle cell hyperthropy in building muscles. I can rationalize this very simple and easily.

If It was a big part of building muscle then it would be very very easy to test for.
We have very good means at testing when a muscle has increased its contractile protein content, aerobic enzymes, nitrogen balance, ect. But in muscles we just dont see anything that jumps out as plainly and clearly as fiber size increase verse cell number increase. Like I said in an earlier post, its easy to see when a cell is dividing into two new cells.

[IntenseAthlete]

ok ,youve established that HGH doesnt have hyperplasia powers, but please explain why it is an anabolic hormone/great stimulator of muscle cell.

Someone with your knowlegde is obviously working in the field.What is your ocupation/education?

[fossilfuel7]

I have also read/heard that GH causes hyperlasia...but if it does not then that means that the reason Bodybuilders are getting so huge now..is because of the insane recovery/healing of the high doses these bro's are on which in turn pushes there bodies and muscles much farther than genetically possible.......Would that conclusion be correct anyone??

[MuscleScience]

ok ,youve established that HGH doesnt have hyperplasia powers, but please explain why it is an anabolic hormone/great stimulator of muscle cell.

Someone with your knowlegde is obviously working in the field.What is your ocupation/education?

IGF-1, which stands for insulin like growth factor-1. IGF-1 is one of a class of peptide hormones with a amino acid complement of about 350 amino acids long. So its a relatively small protein, but its a very powerful inducer of protein synthesis. Steroids , as well as HGH stimulate muscle cells to produce IGF-1. Which then in-turn causes that particular muscle cell and other local muscle cells to increase the activity of the genes that are responsible for causing the muscle cells to do all those processes that cause it to grow. This is an extremely simplistic overview of the process and I don't understand or have enough knowledge to go any further in depth of the process with any certainty without having to do and extensive literature search to reference anything I am "claiming" I guess. What I am speaking from is commen knowledge to my particular field. Not to say that its common knowledge to the ley person. I am talking about what is generally accepted to date.

Probably the easiest way I can explain how IGF-1 works is that its the foremen that tells all the other workers to build the house. Were as steroids and HGH are the big boss that tells the foremen to go build the house.

Now as it seem HGH is the prime stimulator of IGF-1, basically because when you workout your muscles are damaged in some way. This causes an increase in growth hormone which we all know about post workout. HGH and IGF-1 work together on a feedback loop. High HGH stimulates the release of IGF and high IGF stimulates the suppression of HGH.

I hope that answers your question better.

My educational backround without giving away to much info is I have a BA in human biology/physiology and a masters in Physiology, I am currently 60 hours into my doctorate degree. I worked as a research assistant for 4 or 5 years in related fields, and have a few pending publications to my credit if they ever get accepted that is. LOL

AND NO I HAVE NEVER CYCLED SO THATS WHY I DON'T GIVE ADVICE AT ANYTHING MORE THAN THE BASIC LEVEL OF RESEARCH FIRST, MAKE SURE YOUR OF AGE, GET DIET IN CHECK AND HAVE A DOCTORS PRESCRIPTION WERE REQUIRED.

[MuscleScience]

I have also read/heard that GH causes hyperlasia...but if it does not then that means that the reason Bodybuilders are getting so huge now..is because of the insane recovery/healing of the high doses these bro's are on which in turn pushes there bodies and muscles much farther than genetically possible.......Would that conclusion be correct anyone??

I would agree with that statement.

[InsaneInTheMembrane]

This has been one of the most educational thread (that is not a sticky) I have seen in a long while.

Thank you MuscleScience

Cheers

[MuscleScience]

This has been one of the most educational thread (that is not a sticky) I have seen in a long while.

Thank you MuscleScience

Cheers

No problem just trying to give back and contribute to the board that I have gotten lots of help, knowledge and motivations from.

[fossilfuel7]

I would agree with that statement.

Thanks Musclesci...I have always been suspicious of the claim about hyperplasia and wondered if the GH just enabled much faster recovery and healing which allows bro's to use even more anabolics thus making them that much more bigger.

So GH causing new hyperplasia is definitely false then...right??

[vitor]

In salomon(and diffrent types of fish) aswell as rodents, there has been proven studies of muscle cell hyperplasmia by overexpression of the HGH gene.

I dont think they have really been conducted these same type of studies on Humans, which gives an concrete conclusion either way...

But several bb/guys including me, has noticed far more gains form AAS cycles after hgh and igf/mgf cycles have been completed. And in some bodyparts that where locally jabbed, the muscle appear rounder/fuller more developed. I am sure that HGH and peptides have some permenant mechanism of muscle grow that steroids dont have, if it is hyperplasmia or not...Otherwise it would be pointless to use HGH for anything else than fat-loss, afterall HGH suck as anabolic !

[vitor]

HGH can also inhibit Myoatatin up to 40% according to valid studies, which might have an active role in muscle grow, it certanly has in animals.

bump, for more opinions on hgh and hyperplasmia...

[MuscleScience]

HGH can also inhibit Myoatatin up to 40% according to valid studies, which might have an active role in muscle grow, it certanly has in animals.

Good point!!!!

[IntenseAthlete]

Good point!!!!

elaborate

[MuscleScience]

elaborate

Believe it or not the human body is not designed to hold excessive amount of muscle mass for a couple of reasons evolutionarly speaking. One reason is that it takes a lot of energy and nutrients to build muscle. The second is that it takes a lot of energy to just maintain muscle mass. We have evolved very powerful inhibitory mechanisms to control muscle growth. Steroids , IGF and HGH seem to some extent inhibit the myostatin control mechanism. Myostatin is a protein that is expressed especially under fasting conditions that inhibit muscle mass development. If your starving you don't want the nutrients that you are comsuming to go to building muscle. Instead you want it to go to other more essiential parts of the body. Other control mechanisms include cortisol, which is a more systemic catabolic hormone that we all hear about.

[J*U*icEd]

this is great... good job musclescience... very informative!!

[vitor]

Good point!!!!

There has been speculation if HGH could cause hyperplasmia thrue inhibiting the Myostatin aswell, something like this process:

If you neutralize myostatin, then the satellite cells would proliferate much longer, substansially increasing the number of myoblast produced. These myoblast would mature into myocits, then into myotubes, and ultimately into new muscle cells.

What do you think?

[MuscleScience]

There has been speculation if HGH could cause hyperplasmia thrue inhibiting the Myostatin aswell, something like this process:

If you neutralize myostatin, then the satellite cells would proliferate much longer, substansially increasing the number of myoblast produced. These myoblast would mature into myocits, then into myotubes, and ultimately into new muscle cells.

What do you think?

I was hoping no one would bring satellite cells up. LOL

If there is a mechanism this is as good as any. I personally feel that if indeed it does occur that this is the most likely way.

I have read a few papers about satellite cell being induced to differentiate into new muscle cells. The problem with it is that the literature is real hardcore physiology and they are long and boring to read so I don't like looking at it much.

But now my interest is sparked, I will probably go through some literature over xmas break when I have time. The journal of applied physiology is were I have seen most of this stuff. If you have ever read one of those papers then you know what I am talking about Victor. LOL

[vitor]

But now my interest is sparked, I will probably go through some literature over xmas break when I have time. The journal of applied physiology is were I have seen most of this stuff. If you have ever read one of those papers then you know what I am talking about Victor. LOL

Yeah I have gone thrue one of those papers. But english is my 2 language, so the literature became to heavy for me to read lol, I didnt understand it properly enough to explain this in detail

[MuscleScience]

Yeah I have gone thrue one of those papers. But english is my 2 language, so the literature became to heavy for me to read lol, I didnt understand it properly enough to explain this in detail

It seemed like you got it well enough to me.

[IntenseAthlete]

I was hoping no one would bring satellite cells up. LOL

If there is a mechanism this is as good as any. I personally feel that if indeed it does occur that this is the most likely way.

I have read a few papers about satellite cell being induced to differentiate into new muscle cells. The problem with it is that the literature is real hardcore physiology and they are long and boring to read so I don't like looking at it much.

But now my interest is sparked, I will probably go through some literature over xmas break when I have time. The journal of applied physiology is were I have seen most of this stuff. If you have ever read one of those papers then you know what I am talking about Victor. LOL

So this satellite cell/myoblast process is what studies say is hyperplasia?or where it could be happening?Or if it is possible this is the most likely way if it could be explained

[MuscleScience]

So this satellite cell/myoblast process is what studies say is hyperplasia?or where it could be happening?Or if it is possible this is the most likely way if it could be explained

Yep, that is were most of the interest is centered right now in much of the research. Keep in mind though its not a huge factor in muscle size increase, hypertrophy is still the main and most important way muscles grow in size.