I’ve heard that most of the livestock raised in this country have been fed antibiotics since they were young, which causes them to grow faster, which makes selling them much more profitable. Is this accurate?
Purely hypothetical question: Would the same principal apply to humans as well? Would putting antibiotics in its formula cause it to grow larger and more quickly??
I suspect that it might, but I’ve heard it reported that many parents with short children give them Human Growth Hormone, not antibiotics. Why is HGH preferred over antibiotics?
What makes the livestock grow faster are hormones, not antibiotics. I understand that in the USA, cattle is given both, so I assume that you’re confusing them.
Despite Leaffan’s glib, peremptory, and I think incorrect assertion, antibiotics do have “something to do with growth”. This holds for cattle as well as other farm animals. Indeed, it also holds for (some) humans. So, for example, if a child is suffering from chronic infections, and if the organisms responsible for those infections are susceptible to antibiotics, then, yes, antibiotic therapy will promote growth (albeit indirectly, by eradicating the infection and thus relieving the associated “stress” on the body).
Phrased in a different way, if a young animal is suffering from infections, treatment of those infections will enhance growth. This applies equally to human and non-human animals.
The rationale for giving young farm animals etc antibiotics for growth promotion is that those animals might otherwise harbor chronic, growth-inhibiting infections. (The antibiotics might also be of use to prevent catastrophic life-threatening infections as well.)
To answer the OP’s question, then, antibiotic use would promote growth in young humans only if there were untreated, chronic infections present (something that’s uncommon in the developed world). On the other hand, of course, indiscriminate use of antibiotcs will lead to the infectious agents developing resistance against those antibiotcs.
Honestly, you are really stretching the notion. I think it can be safely asserted that antibiotics have nothing to do with growth. Most people can tell the difference between direct and indirect effects.
Your argument is similar to the “alcohol causes people” argument.
You do know that we are in GQ, right? The place where we try to avoid guessing and assumptions? Especially about subjects where we’re ignorant? Even if an assertion by another poster is new and surprising?
As much as it might surprise you, KarlGauss is absolutely correct. No one seriously doubts that antibiotics promote growth in livestock, in a real and financially meaningful way. Farmers spend millions on them, because they demonstrably put on the pounds.
There is a livestock antibiotic debate, but it’s not over this premise. That’s a given, that every farmer, veterinarian and agriculural biologist accepts. Rather, the debate is over the secondary effects of this practice – the creation of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.
Sustained use of antibiotics might actually be detrimental to growth, because it might kill off the subject’s gut flora; these micro organisms are essential to our growth and development because they assist in processing food and the manufacture of vitamins.
Stretching? Hardly. Antibiotics are much more complicated than just being “bug killers”. In many cases they are anti-inflammatories for both the bowel and lung, and can improve growth in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and cystic fibrosis.
As a rule of thumb, if KarlGauss says it, and it’s about medicine, I’d think long and hard about disagreeing with him. Because I’d probably be wrong.
Huh? And this is not stretching the notion? By this standart, antibiotics pretty much improve anything, for instance posting on the SDMB because less potential contributors are too ill to post.
Hmm, interesting. I’ve been taking 250mg oxytetracycline twice daily for about 4 years now*, and I seem to have expanded somewhat. Not critically - I’m about 6’3", 210lbs - but I am about 40lbs heavier and 2" more girthsome than I used to be. Other factors are in play of course, like being the wrong side of 30, increasing calorie intake, decreased enegy expenditure etc.
Would antibiotics play a part in increasing the fat or muscle mass of an adult specimen (human or cow)?