HGH,AAS - increase the number of muscle cells?

[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?

[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.