Shallow anti-intellectualism: media-induced HGH rancor

A trivial note, but a revelation that is emblematic of the media's naive and shallow anti-intellectualism: there is no evidence that human growth hormone affects athletic performance. The consensus among HGH studies is that the illicit substance in question which received a plethora of attention serves little to no performance-enhancing purposes. A little intellectual rigor (less than five minutes of digging for research essays regarding baseball) provided me with ample fodder for an essay I penned.

Highlights include:

Rader and Winkle observe no evidence to suggest steroid consumption is as high as it once was, but contend that HGH (entirely undetectable) has replaced steroids (now detectable and illicit) as the drug of choice and is likely largely responsible for the persistence of high offensive production (Rader and Winkle 91).

Rader and Winkle’s contention is problematic in light of Yarasheski’s conclusion that HGH has no effect on muscle force production (Yarasheski et al. E264). Yarasheski’s analysis documents an extensive double-blind study of young men subject to identically laborious resistance training regimens. One group is administered HGH, the other a placebo. The study reveals that HGH subjects have a marginal advantage in the production of fat-free mass (FFM), but Yarasheski concludes that FFM is “principally water” and that under extensive resistance training the HGH subjects are in no better position than subjects given placeboes to increase “muscle size and strength and the rate of muscle protein synthesis” (Yarasheski et al. E264, E266). Furthermore, Tobin demonstrated through his bat-speed calculations that additional energy is required to propel additional mass (Tobin reduces steroid-induced bat speed estimations from 5% to 4% to account for the increase in mass) (Tobin 20). Since marginal FFM gains as a result of HGH serve no energy production purposes, it follows that HGH-induced mass should be regarded as a hindrance to bat speed rather than a performance enhancement.

In light of the evidence of a reduction in steroid consumption (visibly lower injury rates, lower avg. weight, enacting of steroid tests and penalties, undetectable HGH), and the futility of HGH (no additional energy production), I argued that HGH cannot be held responsible for the persistence of inflated offensive production and it would be prudent to study other factors beyond the scope of this paper.

It puzzles me that amongst the endless news coverage of the Mitchell Report and congressional testimonies of prominent athletes, the vast majority of the mainstream press and sports media couldn't be bothered with whether or not HGH helps in the production of all those contentious home runs.