Any Exhaustive Experts on Cardarine, Etc.?

[Chados]

There likely won’t be too much research on cardarine in the future given that development was abandoned, and GSK/Ligand are already working on a newer alternative that they believe will have a better safety profile. The developers decided that the potential for adverse effects, quite serious ones, was too high; they aren’t going to pay for more research on it.

True and I still think it's up to everyone to decide what to believe about cardarine. Since studies in humans are so little you can pretty much say we won't know for sure until they are.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Did I mention any studies being correct? I mentioned a few studies with different outcomes and I think thats fair?. There was more than one study showing it didn't also. And as far as I can tell from the studies there isn't one study proving cardarine actually gave cancer only that it promotes accelerated growth to rate given cancer.

You are only using the studies that show negative effects and saying that you don't know. I just mentioned a few different so no I'm not being anything. I'm being very open to the facts.

I think you’re seriously underestimating the negative effects of accelerating cancer growth my friend. Anyway, you do what you want, but I think it’s beyond arrogant to claim to know more than GSK and Ligand, who abandoned development and said that no one should use it, period. And it’s insane to take it with/around AAS use (like some people do to help with cholesterol), as we know that AAS can negatively influence cancer itself.

The most insane thing, and it’s not you doing it though, is people claiming that development was abandoned because they found out it CURED CANCER. That’s asinine; there aren’t even words to describe that. If anyone believes this, then they should, logically, run cardarine every day for the rest of their lives. Back up your beliefs with your actions... if it’s so effective, safe, and cures/prevents cancer. It’s the freaking holy grail of medicine...

 

[muscleupcrohn]

True and I still think it's up to everyone to decide what to believe about cardarine. Since studies in humans are so little you can pretty much say we won't know for sure until they are.

Yeah, but I insist that the most logical course of action is to listen to the people who developed it and subsequently abandoned it and recommend that no one ever use it. They likely know more than either of us.

 

[Chados]

I think you’re seriously underestimating the negative effects of accelerating cancer growth my friend. Anyway, you do what you want, but I think it’s beyond arrogant to claim to know more than GSK and Ligand, who abandoned development and said that no one should use it, period. And it’s insane to take it with/around AAS use (like some people do to help with cholesterol), as we know that AAS can negatively influence cancer itself.

The most insane thing, and it’s not you doing it though, is people claiming that development was abandoned because they found out it CURED CANCER. That’s asinine; there aren’t even words to describe that.

No that's ridiculous. There's no way they abandon a study with something that cured cancer. I'm not underestimating anything I just don't believe we can look at that study when other studies later on did show no sign of acceleration and actually a decrease. Again this was with rats and according to the study had no effect in humans. How do we explain that? Do we trust one or the other?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

No that's ridiculous. There's no way they abandon a study with something that cured cancer. I'm not underestimating anything I just don't believe we can look at that study when other studies later on did show no sign of acceleration and actually a decrease. Again this was with rats and according to the study had no effect in humans. How do we explain that? Do we trust one or the other?

What studies showed no effects on humans? The cell (in vitro) studies? That’s hardly conclusive. The few week/month studies on humans? They didn’t test for cancer, and even smoking likely won’t give you cancer in a month or two. My point in regard to accelerating cancer is that this is more than enough to make it incredibly risky to run with AAS. And there are people here (multiple people) claiming that it was abandoned because it cures cancer. At least we can agree that’s insane haha.

 

[Chados]

What studies showed no effects on humans? The cell (in vitro) studies? That’s hardly conclusive. The few week/month studies on humans? They didn’t test for cancer, and even smoking likely won’t give you cancer in a month or two. My point in regard to accelerating cancer is that this is more than enough to make it incredibly risky to run with AAS. And there are people here (multiple people) claiming that it was abandoned because it cures cancer. At least we can agree that’s insane haha.

That's above insane.

The studies show a decrease in cancer tumours but the same or if it was another study tells us it doesn't affect humans in any way which is positive for not making cancer worse and negative because it doesn't make it better. The cancer was the problem and if this is true there is no problem.. Well nothing that we know about.

cardarine wasn't made to treat cancer in the first place and they obviously shut it down for own reason, studies on rats and even if other studies show differently it's up to them to decide wether it's worth the risk to give to the population.

It is worth to mention that human studies are the only real studies we can do. I still believe it's a bit grey market because if it was proven 100% it gave cancer I don't think anyone could sell It legally in western society.

 

[Chados]

I don't think we disagree so much. I think youre leaning more towards the bad studies while I'm leaning more to the other way. We both still seem open to the fact that we might be wrong and I think we both mentioned that quite a few times.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

That's above insane.

The studies show a decrease in cancer tumours but the same or if it was another study tells us it doesn't affect humans in any way which is positive for not making cancer worse and negative because it doesn't make it better. The cancer was the problem and if this is true there is no problem.. Well nothing that we know about.

cardarine wasn't made to treat cancer in the first place and they obviously shut it down for own reason, studies on rats and even if other studies show differently it's up to them to decide wether it's worth the risk to give to the population.

It is worth to mention that human studies are the only real studies we can do. I still believe it's a bit grey market because if it was proven 100% it gave cancer I don't think anyone could sell It legally in western society.

Of course it’s not 100% proven to cause/increase cancer growth in humans. My point is that it’s not proven not to either, and, if I had to bet on one side, besides just erring on the side of caution, it’d be to listen to the developers, who know more about it than you, me, or anyone else in the world. If they knew it didn’t cause/increase/etc. cancer growth in people, they never would have abandoned development. They may not know for sure either way, but they decided that the potential was too high of a risk, and I’d listen to them above any of us people arguing on the internet. That’s my entire point. You decide your own risk vs reward balance though.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

That's above insane.

The studies show a decrease in cancer tumours but the same or if it was another study tells us it doesn't affect humans in any way which is positive for not making cancer worse and negative because it doesn't make it better. The cancer was the problem and if this is true there is no problem.. Well nothing that we know about.

cardarine wasn't made to treat cancer in the first place and they obviously shut it down for own reason, studies on rats and even if other studies show differently it's up to them to decide wether it's worth the risk to give to the population.

It is worth to mention that human studies are the only real studies we can do. I still believe it's a bit grey market because if it was proven 100% it gave cancer I don't think anyone could sell It legally in western society.

Also, you can’t legally sell it. Anyone selling it is doing so without the developers permission, not to mention it being an unapproved drug. Even the people selling it explicitly state that it is not for human consumption, so there’s that. We all know what that means, but my point is that you can’t legally sell it for people to use, so that’s not a good argument for it’s safety.

 

[Chados]

Of course it’s not 100% proven to cause/increase cancer growth in humans. My point is that it’s not proven not to either, and, if I had to bet on one side, besides just erring on the side of caution, it’d be to listen to the developers, who know more about it than you, me, or anyone else in the world. If they knew it didn’t cause/increase/etc. cancer growth in people, they never would have abandoned development. They may not know for sure either way, but they decided that the potential was too high of a risk, and I’d listen to them above any of us people arguing on the internet. That’s my entire point. You decide your own risk vs reward balance though.

That's fair and that's why I think we don't really disagree. I think there are ways to look at the studies being flawed and that doesn't mean I know either or.

Research chemical companies exist due to a gray area of the law, and while purchasing is legal, it is only legal for research purposes.


If you want to buy Cardarine online you’re in luck, as this is the only place most will be able to buy it, much less find it. Again, research chemical labs found online are the primary distributors of the medication. Such research companies commonly carry other medications such as Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs), Aromatase Inhibitors (AI’s), various Peptides as well as numerous other items. While such purchases are legal in the U.S. from U.S. based companies, you will want to research your own countries laws before making a purchase.

Found on the internet

 

[muscleupcrohn]

That's fair and that's why I think we don't really disagree. I think there are ways to look at the studies being flawed and that doesn't mean I know either or.

Research chemical companies exist due to a gray area of the law, and while purchasing is legal, it is only legal for research purposes.


If you want to buy Cardarine online you’re in luck, as this is the only place most will be able to buy it, much less find it. Again, research chemical labs found online are the primary distributors of the medication. Such research companies commonly carry other medications such as Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs), Aromatase Inhibitors (AI’s), various Peptides as well as numerous other items. While such purchases are legal in the U.S. from U.S. based companies, you will want to research your own countries laws before making a purchase.

Found on the internet

Yeah, my point is that since it can’t legally be sold for human consumption, saying that it’s not illegal to sell doesn’t tell us anything about its perceived safety or lack thereof. It is illegal to sell for human consumption/use. I can respect you saying that we don’t know 100% either way, and we can all make our own decisions; I guess my issue now is more with the “it cures cancer, that’s why it was abandoned” thing some other people are saying. That’s just silly haha.

 

[Chados]

Yeah, my point is that since it can’t legally be sold for human consumption, saying that it’s not illegal to sell doesn’t tell us anything about its perceived safety or lack thereof. It is illegal to sell for human consumption/use. I can respect you saying that we don’t know 100% either way, and we can all make our own decisions; I guess my issue now is more with the “it cures cancer, that’s why it was abandoned” thing some other people are saying. That’s just silly haha.

Haha that's not where we really have to go is it? That's clearly a company refusing to take billions for their discovery.

 

[ax1]

To add to this, coffee, amphetamine,ephedrine gives energy, one is healthy the others aren't. I think a already established there are things with positive effects being harmful.

Im guessing your picking "coffee" as healthy, although Im sure quantity needs to be accounted for. As for "others arent," who is saying ephedrine used properly as coffee isnt healthy?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Im guessing your picking "coffee" as healthy, although Im sure quantity needs to be accounted for. As for "other arent" who is saying ephedrine used properly as coffee isnt healthy?

Coffee is quite healthy when used in moderation (not excess), and ephedrine has a very good safety profile when used responsibly as well. But now we’re getting off topic haha.

 

[Chados]

Im guessing your picking "coffee" as healthy, although Im sure quantity needs to be accounted for. As for "others arent," who is saying ephedrine used properly as coffee isnt healthy?

I'm sure there's some healthy benefits with crack also but I don't think ephedrine will ever be considered healthy next to coffee.

The use of Ephedrine raises blood pressure, can cause an irregular heart rhythm and may result in sudden cardiac death. Chronic use of Ephedrine can also cause strokes, seizures, heart attacks, and death.

I'm not sure drinking some extra coffee now and then will cause a stroke, but yeah anything is dangerous in to high amounts and most things are pretty safe if dosed properly.

 

[ax1]

I'm sure there's some healthy benefits with crack also but I don't think ephedrine will ever be considered healthy next to coffee.

The use of Ephedrine raises blood pressure, can cause an irregular heart rhythm and may result in sudden cardiac death. Chronic use of Ephedrine can also cause strokes, seizures, heart attacks, and death.

I'm not sure drinking some extra coffee now and then will cause a stroke, but yeah anything is dangerous in to high amounts and most things are pretty safe if dosed properly.

None of that is necessarily true and death is extremely rare and likely caused by other coincidental factors. I do know there was alot of fear mongering in the political atmosphere and things done out of irrational reactionary policy making to cater the interests of some voters in the past. I dont think a crack and ephedrine safety comparison is fair at all. Nowhere are doctors prescribing therapeutic doses of crack to help people, ephedrine yes.

Here is a good study on ephedrine safety.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565736/

Subgroup analyses revealed no strata with significantly elevated risk. In the case-control substudy, there was no increased risk among naïve users or users with large cumulative doses. Prescribed ephedrine/caffeine was not associated with a substantially increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in this study.
-----------------------------------------------
The evidence linking ephedrine to cardiovascular morbidity is based mainly on spontaneous reporting. However, with the very large number of users (3) and their possible adverse health behavior (13), coincidental cardiovascular events probably occur in large numbers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For one endpoint, death occurring outside of a health institution, we observed odds ratios below unity. This should not be taken too literally as a protective effect. One possible explanation is that some of these subjects died at home from chronic nonmalignant diseases that had not resulted in secondary care contacts. These subjects were obviously very unlikely to have used ephedrine/caffeine shortly before their deaths. In addition, some subjects with impending cardiovascular events could have been warned by subtle symptoms and could have chosen to discontinue use of ephedrine for fear of its claimed toxicity. We performed a subanalysis in subjects with no prior cardiovascular diagnoses and no prior use of cardiovascular, antidiabetic, antithrombotic, or antihypertensive agents (Table 3). The estimate for this subgroup differed very little from the main estimate (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.61, 1.08; after adjustment for trend, OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.62, 1.14). These “confounding-by-contraindication” effects are difficult to manage in observational studies, insofar as the warning symptoms are not always captured by available data sources, and we cannot rule out the possibility that the odds ratios for the main estimates may have been biased downward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Another limitation is that in our main analysis, we assumed an immediate effect of ephedrine/caffeine. If an adverse effect of ephedrine/caffeine had delayed onset (e.g., if it were mediated through a hypertensive effect), we might not have captured it by our crossover analysis. However, there was nothing in our case-control analysis to suggest a delayed effect with continuous exposure.

 

[Chados]

None of that is necessarily true and death is extremely rare and likely caused by other coincidental factors. I do know there was alot of fear mongering in the political atmosphere and things done out of irrational reactionary policy making to cater the interests of some voters in the past. I dont think a crack and ephedrine safety comparison is fair at all. Nowhere are doctors prescribing therapeutic doses of crack to help people, ephedrine yes.

Here is a good study on ephedrine safety.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565736/

Subgroup analyses revealed no strata with significantly elevated risk. In the case-control substudy, there was no increased risk among naïve users or users with large cumulative doses. Prescribed ephedrine/caffeine was not associated with a substantially increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in this study.
-----------------------------------------------
The evidence linking ephedrine to cardiovascular morbidity is based mainly on spontaneous reporting. However, with the very large number of users (3) and their possible adverse health behavior (13), coincidental cardiovascular events probably occur in large numbers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For one endpoint, death occurring outside of a health institution, we observed odds ratios below unity. This should not be taken too literally as a protective effect. One possible explanation is that some of these subjects died at home from chronic nonmalignant diseases that had not resulted in secondary care contacts. These subjects were obviously very unlikely to have used ephedrine/caffeine shortly before their deaths. In addition, some subjects with impending cardiovascular events could have been warned by subtle symptoms and could have chosen to discontinue use of ephedrine for fear of its claimed toxicity. We performed a subanalysis in subjects with no prior cardiovascular diagnoses and no prior use of cardiovascular, antidiabetic, antithrombotic, or antihypertensive agents (Table 3). The estimate for this subgroup differed very little from the main estimate (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.61, 1.08; after adjustment for trend, OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.62, 1.14). These “confounding-by-contraindication” effects are difficult to manage in observational studies, insofar as the warning symptoms are not always captured by available data sources, and we cannot rule out the possibility that the odds ratios for the main estimates may have been biased downward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Another limitation is that in our main analysis, we assumed an immediate effect of ephedrine/caffeine. If an adverse effect of ephedrine/caffeine had delayed onset (e.g., if it were mediated through a hypertensive effect), we might not have captured it by our crossover analysis. However, there was nothing in our case-control analysis to suggest a delayed effect with continuous exposure.

Yes it is rare but people used it for astma and I'm not sure they do that anymore. I have astma myself and never seen or heard of it during the last ten - twenty years (probably because overdoses) and people with cardiovascular symptoms by genetics which is a cause of concern too. Now using it outside medical purposes for fatburning it's a different story. I just think the dosage for it to basically be regarded as safe is very low and not really beneficial for any other purpose than medicine and perhaps under a doctor's supervision. Almost anything in small doses are harmless, probably crack too but then you might not get the high.

 

[Cgkone]

Wait......is there studies that GW didn't effect tumor growth but instead slowed it?
If so please post link.

 

[Cgkone]

And aren't most steroids we use( those of us that do) chemicals that have been abandoned by some company because of negative sides?

 

[ax1]

Yes it is rare but people used it for astma and I'm not sure they do that anymore. I have astma myself and never seen or heard of it during the last ten - twenty years (probably because overdoses) and people with cardiovascular symptoms by genetics which is a cause of concern too. Now using it outside medical purposes for fatburning it's a different story. I just think the dosage for it to basically be regarded as safe is very low and not really beneficial for any other purpose than medicine and perhaps under a doctor's supervision. Almost anything in small doses are harmless, probably crack too but then you might not get the high.

It doesnt sound at all like you even looked at the study or had time to because it shows how in Denmark they clearly prescribed ephedrine for weight loss, as in fat burning, which IS a medical purpose at a common "bodybuilder dose" of 20/200 at up to 110,000 patients at a single given time, 2% of the entire Danish population at 1 time and 300,000 patients from 95-2001. Now they did stop that in 2002 unfortunately due to that crap that went down in Washington with their alcoholic chain smoking politicians (sorry Im venting here now, lol) and the fear mongering that went rampant globally.

Now do we have a documented medical sample bigger than that showing its dangerous when used for fat loss?

 

[Chados]

Wait......is there studies that GW didn't effect tumor growth but instead slowed it?
If so please post link.

Let me see if I can find that

 

[Chados]

It doesnt sound like you looked at the study or had time to you because it shows how in Denmark they clearly prescribed ephedrine for weight loss, as in fat burning, which IS a medical purpose at a common "bodybuilder dose" of 20/200 at up to 110,000 patients at a single given time, 2% of the entire Danish population at 1 time and 300,000 patients from 95-2001. Now they did stop that in 2002 unfortunately due to that crap that went down in Washington with their alcoholic chain smoking politicians (sorry Im venting here now, lol) and the fear mongering that went rampant globally.

Now do we have a documented medical sample bigger than that showing its dangerous when used for fat loss?

Ah didn't notice the link.. some interesting stuff though I'll give you that.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-dangers-of-the-herb-ephedra

Check this out

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I'm sure there's some healthy benefits with crack also but I don't think ephedrine will ever be considered healthy next to coffee.

The use of Ephedrine raises blood pressure, can cause an irregular heart rhythm and may result in sudden cardiac death. Chronic use of Ephedrine can also cause strokes, seizures, heart attacks, and death.

I'm not sure drinking some extra coffee now and then will cause a stroke, but yeah anything is dangerous in to high amounts and most things are pretty safe if dosed properly.

This is a misleading comment at best. You're gauging the healthiness of ephedrine relative to coffee. How about you evaluate the safety (which is what we're talking about) of ephedrine on its own merit. Many studies have found ephedrine use for many months to be safe, even paired with caffeine (EC). If you're even going to try to compare ephedrine to crack, you must be smoking something good.

The claims you're making about ephedrine are misleading at best, as ephedrine is generally very well tolerated, even when used multiple times a day and paired with caffeine.

I don't even really feel like responding to this sort of post anymore, as either you're intentionally portraying ephedrine in an unfair (inaccurate) light, or you just haven't read the actual research on ephedrine and the consensus on its safety profile.

Yes it is rare but people used it for astma and I'm not sure they do that anymore. I have astma myself and never seen or heard of it during the last ten - twenty years (probably because overdoses) and people with cardiovascular symptoms by genetics which is a cause of concern too. Now using it outside medical purposes for fatburning it's a different story. I just think the dosage for it to basically be regarded as safe is very low and not really beneficial for any other purpose than medicine and perhaps under a doctor's supervision. Almost anything in small doses are harmless, probably crack too but then you might not get the high.

You do know that there are MANY studies using it WITH CAFFEINE MULTIPLE TIMES PER DAY EVERY DAY FOR MONTHS showing it is very well tolerated with a very favorable safety profile, right?

Comparing it to crack is asinine...

And aren't most steroids we use( those of us that do) chemicals that have been abandoned by some company because of negative sides?

Testosterone? Super common and prescribed to millions of people. Some others? Yeah, but that's even more of a reason to, at the very least, not use cardarine WITH steroids, as some people here do.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Ah didn't notice the link.. some interesting stuff though I'll give you that.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-dangers-of-the-herb-ephedra

Check this out

Ephedra =/= ephedrine. Please do some cursory research before making sensational claims. Also, how about some actual studies?

Edit: That article has not a single reference...

 

[muscleupcrohn]

he safety and efficacy of a mixture of ephedrine (75-150mg), caffeine (150mg) and aspirin (330mg), in divided premeal doses, were investigated in 24 obese humans (mean BMI 37.0) in a randomized double blind placebo-controlled trial...

In all studies, no significant changes in heart rate, blood pressure, blood glucose, insulin, and cholesterol levels, and no differences in the frequency of side effects were found. ECA in these doses is thus well tolerated in otherwise healthy obese subjects, and supports modest, sustained weight loss even without prescribed caloric restriction, and may be more effective in conjunction with restriction of energy intake.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8384187

Side effects (tremor, insomnia and dizziness) were transient and after eight weeks of treatment they had reached placebo levels.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1318281

We conclude that the ephedrine/caffeine combination is effective in improving and maintaining weight loss, further it has lean body mass saving properties. The side effects are minor and transient and no withdrawal symptoms have been found.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8384186

According to the present pilot study, CE can be a safe and effective compound for the treatment of obesity in adolescents.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126208

Nice try though. Safe, even when used multiple times a day, with caffeine, every day, for months.

Can we try to do some basic research before making claims comparing ephedrine to crack? Or making asinine claims about it killing people? It's fine to not know everything, or to have questions, but let's not pretend to know everything and make silly/unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Cgkone]

This is a misleading comment at best. You're gauging the healthiness of ephedrine relative to coffee. How about you evaluate the safety (which is what we're talking about) of ephedrine on its own merit. Many studies have found ephedrine use for many months to be safe, even paired with caffeine (EC). If you're even going to try to compare ephedrine to crack, you must be smoking something good.

The claims you're making about ephedrine are misleading at best, as ephedrine is generally very well tolerated, even when used multiple times a day and paired with caffeine.

I don't even really feel like responding to this sort of post anymore, as either you're intentionally portraying ephedrine in an unfair (inaccurate) light, or you just haven't read the actual research on ephedrine and the consensus on its safety profile.

You do know that there are MANY studies using it WITH CAFFEINE MULTIPLE TIMES PER DAY EVERY DAY FOR MONTHS showing it is very well tolerated with a very favorable safety profile, right?

Comparing it to crack is asinine...

Testosterone? Super common and prescribed to millions of people. Some others? Yeah, but that's even more of a reason to, at the very least, not use cardarine WITH steroids, as some people here do.

Id like to see the study where it shrank tumors.
But I was referring to anavar dbol deca etc. All these were tested on people and pulled due to safety right.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Id like to see the study where it shrank tumors.
But I was referring to anavar dbol deca etc. All these were tested on people and pulled due to safety right.

https://www.tga.gov.au/book-page/12-cardarine
This review should have everything on cardarine.

 

[ax1]

Ah didn't notice the link.. some interesting stuff though I'll give you that.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-dangers-of-the-herb-ephedra

Check this out

I lived through the ban years ago, I remember that.

Keep in mind, there is a difference between ephedrine and ephedra. Ephedrine is 1 alkaloid from Ephedra which contains other alkaloids such as pseudoephedrine and nor-ephedrine (which nor-ep was popular and effective on its own for better appetite effects.) Your gonna get more effects and pop from Ma Huang products, but thats a different story. The ingredient we have significant human safety data on is specifically the alkaloid ephedrine.

As for the baseball player and claims of all these deaths all over the place in that article, that was a typical non-scientific article posted around many media outlets for its time. It in no way proves ephedrine or even Ma Huang is dangerous at proper doses. We have to look at how each person used the product along with especially looking at their medical history, as we know many people buying this stuff over the counter are overweight to obese people with other medical conditions looking for shortcuts and without supervision of a doctor. There are too many questions left to conclude off that typical attack article of its time which doesnt back anything with any real studies or research.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I lived through the ban years ago, I remember that.

Keep in mind, there is a difference between ephedrine and ephedra. Ephedrine is 1 alkaloid from Ephedra which contains other alkaloids such as pseudoephedrine and nor-ephedrine (which nor-ep was popular and effective on its own for better appetite effects.) Your gonna get more effects and pop from Ma Huang products, but thats a different story. The ingredient we have significant human safety data on is specifically the alkaloid ephedrine.

As for the baseball player and claims of all these deaths all over the place in that article, that was a typical non-scientific article posted around many media outlets for its time. It in no way proves ephedrine or even Ma Huang is dangerous at proper doses. We have to look at how each person used the product along with especially looking at their medical history, as we know many people buying this stuff over the counter are overweight to obese people looking for shortcuts and without supervision of a doctor.

This. I just referenced multiple actual studies using ephedrine and caffeine daily (multiple times a day) for months, and the combination was actually very well tolerated.

 

[Chados]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8384187

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1318281

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8384186

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126208

Nice try though. Safe, even when used multiple times a day, with caffeine, every day, for months.

Can we try to do some basic research before making claims comparing ephedrine to crack? Or making asinine claims about it killing people? It's fine to not know everything, or to have questions, but let's not pretend to know everything and make silly/unsubstantiated claims.

I'm not comparing it to crack I'm saying that anything is fine in small doses. Let's go by your logic here instead, cardarine is banned cause studies show the opposite. You say don't use it. Ephedrine is banned and have studies supporting all kinda of ****. Now why do you say this is safe?

 

[Chados]

Id like to see the study where it shrank tumors.
But I was referring to anavar dbol deca etc. All these were tested on people and pulled due to safety right.

Elizabeth E. Girroir et al., (2007) [13]
Girroir et al., 2007 examined the effect of ligand activation of PPARδ on cell growth of two human cancer cell lines, MCF7 (breast cancer) and UACC903 (melanoma) in the presence or absence of serum using two highly specific PPARδ ligands, GW0742 or cardarine (GW501516). Culturing cells in the presence of either GW0742 or GW501516 caused up-regulation of the known PPARδ target gene angiopoietin-like protein 4 (ANGPTL4). Inhibition of cell growth was observed in both cell lines cultured in the presence of either GW0742 or GW501516, and the presence or absence of serum had little influence on this inhibition. The authors concluded that ligand activation of PPARδ inhibits the growth of both MCF7 and UACC903 cell lines and provide further evidence that PPARδ ligands are not mitogenic in human cancer cell lines

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I'm not comparing it to crack I'm saying that anything is fine in small doses. Let's go by your logic here instead, cardarine is banned cause studies show the opposite. You say don't use it. Ephedrine is banned and have studies supporting all kinda of ****. Now why do you say this is safe?

What? Cardarine was never "banned," it was "abandoned" in the developmental/testing phase, meaning that it was never even released/sold, so couldn't be in a position to be banned in the first place.

Also, ephedrine isn't only safe in "small doses," it's repeatedly been shown to be safe at EFFECTIVE doses, when paired with moderate doses of caffeine, taken daily for months. This is WAY more research showing safety than we have with cardarine; orders of magnitude more.

Also, if you did ANY research at all, you'd know that ephedrine is completely legal OTC in Canada, and also legal to buy without a prescription in the USA, you just have to ask for it at the counter of your local pharmacy; it's banned so people don't use it to make stronger drugs, which is why you can only buy so much at one time or in a certain period of time.

I hope you're trolling, because the lack of knowledge you're displaying paired with your confidence in making claims is quite ironic.

The OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS on actual studies (not random articles) is that ephedrine is quite safe and has a favorable safety profile, even paired with caffeine, taken daily, for months, multiple times per day. You're wrong...

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Elizabeth E. Girroir et al., (2007) [13]
Girroir et al., 2007 examined the effect of ligand activation of PPARδ on cell growth of two human cancer cell lines, MCF7 (breast cancer) and UACC903 (melanoma) in the presence or absence of serum using two highly specific PPARδ ligands, GW0742 or cardarine (GW501516). Culturing cells in the presence of either GW0742 or GW501516 caused up-regulation of the known PPARδ target gene angiopoietin-like protein 4 (ANGPTL4). Inhibition of cell growth was observed in both cell lines cultured in the presence of either GW0742 or GW501516, and the presence or absence of serum had little influence on this inhibition. The authors concluded that ligand activation of PPARδ inhibits the growth of both MCF7 and UACC903 cell lines and provide further evidence that PPARδ ligands are not mitogenic in human cancer cell lines

This is an IN VITRO study; it's not in an actual living organism. It does not prove or disprove anything. At best, it's reason for further research, but it wasn't enough for GSK or Ligand to continue research on the drug, but, of course, you know better than they do...

 

[muscleupcrohn]

From your own in vitro study, which is the sole basis for your claims:

However, this could also be due to the fact that these studies were performed in cell culture, which are not influenced by variables resulting from other cell types not found in an in vitro model.

 

[ax1]

This. I just referenced multiple actual studies using ephedrine and caffeine daily (multiple times a day) for months, and the combination was actually very well tolerated.

Thanks, I needed that. I had a bunch more bookmarks on ephedrine from a thousand years ago and half of them dont exist anymore, lol

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Thanks, I needed that. I had a bunch more bookmarks on ephedrine from a thousand years ago and half of them dont exist anymore, lol

I just don't understand what he's even arguing. Ephedrine isn't banned from purchasing, it's just banned from dietary supplements. Sports ban ingredients for being performance enhancing, not for being unsafe, cardarine was never banned because it was never released/sold, there is a ton of research showing that ephedrine (with caffeine even) is very well tolerated. I just don't get it man.

 

[Chados]

Relax dude, sorry not banned but not produced by the company. I don't know where I said it's the worst thing you can ever take (ephedrine). Again everything is fine to a certain degree or almost everything and if you think ephedrine is actually safe I do not really care. Most health people can use stimulants and not die instantly but to say it doesn't have any effect on the heart?.

I don't vouch for any study on cardarine, he wanted a link I gave one. The scientists words not mine

 

[Chados]

I just don't understand what he's even arguing. Ephedrine isn't banned from purchasing, it's just banned from dietary supplements. Sports ban ingredients for being performance enhancing, not for being unsafe, cardarine was never banned because it was never released/sold, there is a ton of research showing that ephedrine (with caffeine even) is very well tolerated. I just don't get it man.

Not everyone lives in America.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Relax dude, sorry not banned but not produced by the company. I don't know where I said it's the worst thing you can ever take (ephedrine). Again everything is fine to a certain degree or almost everything and if you think ephedrine is actually safe I do not really care. Most health people can use stimulants and not die instantly but to say it doesn't have any effect on the heart?.

I don't vouch for any study on cardarine, he wanted a link I gave one. The scientists words not mine

You tried to say that anything is safe at low doses, and proceeded to use crack as an example of this. Even discussing crack and ephedrine in the same sentence is asinine. Ephedrine is safe at the doses it's commonly used at, even when paired with caffeine, taken multiple times a day, every day, for months. There is orders of magnitude more safety data on ephedrine than on cardarine; to suggest otherwise is insanity.

Not everyone lives in America.

Or Canada, where you can buy it OTC in pretty much any store? Agmatine is banned in some countries, it must be so dangerous, right? Something being banned by a government agency doesn't mean that it's unsafe. You logic is all over the place, and entirely fallacious.

Comparing ephedrine to crack or cardarine is insane, and if you're insistent on doing so, I'll see myself out, as you're clearly not interested in accuracy or actual science.

 

[ax1]

Relax dude, sorry not banned but not produced by the company. I don't know where I said it's the worst thing you can ever take (ephedrine). Again everything is fine to a certain degree or almost everything and if you think ephedrine is actually safe I do not really care. Most health people can use stimulants and not die instantly but to say it doesn't have any effect on the heart?.

I don't vouch for any study on cardarine, he wanted a link I gave one. The scientists words not mine

You made heavy duty claims that people die from it and get other medical conditions VVVV

I'm sure there's some healthy benefits with crack also but I don't think ephedrine will ever be considered healthy next to coffee.

The use of Ephedrine raises blood pressure, can cause an irregular heart rhythm and may result in sudden cardiac death. Chronic use of Ephedrine can also cause strokes, seizures, heart attacks, and death.

Now you can actually argue that Ephedrine along with caffeine has a certain medical application more beneficial than coffee too. Your still making claims that it negatively may effect the heart, but what do you have to back that up? You should look at real human data that we have, 1 of them based off 300,000 patients who used ephedrine.

 

[Chados]

You tried to say that anything is safe at low doses, and proceeded to use crack as an example of this. Even discussing crack and ephedrine in the same sentence is asinine. Ephedrine is safe at the doses it's commonly used at, even when paired with caffeine, taken multiple times a day, every day, for months. There is orders of magnitude more safety data on ephedrine than on cardarine; to suggest otherwise is insanity.

Or Canada, where you can buy it OTC in pretty much any store? Agmatine is banned in some countries, it must be so dangerous, right? Something being banned by a government agency doesn't mean that it's unsafe. You logic is all over the place, and entirely fallacious.

Comparing ephedrine to crack or cardarine is insane, and if you're insistent on doing so, I'll see myself out, as you're clearly not interested in accuracy or actual science.

Stop being ignorant, a 12 year old could read the sarcasm with the crack. Youre now doing the opposite of the cardarine study. You're saying that the dosage is safe and that this study tells us its not dangerous. Tell me how many people outside this study are using that dosage for fatloss?

 

[ax1]

Not everyone lives in America.

I buy Bronkaid which is made by Bayer and Primatene which is made by Pfizer behind the counter here in New York USA all the time.

 

[Chados]

You made heavy duty claims that people die from it and get other medical conditions VVVV



Now you can actually argue that Ephedrine along with caffeine has a certain medical application more beneficial than coffee too. Your still making claims that it negatively may effect the heart, but what do you have to back that up? You should look at real human data that we have, 1 of them based off 300,000 patients who used ephedrine.

So taking small dosages makes it safe? What would kill you first? 160 mg of ephedrine or 160 mg of coffee?

 

[Cgkone]

https://www.tga.gov.au/book-page/12-cardarine
This review should have everything on cardarine.

Thanks.
But this study states no benefits.
Aren't there countless claims of lipid, cardio and endurance improvement.
I've taken it and it made cardio easier.
I didn't get bloods done. But people have right?

 

[ax1]

I buy Bronkaid which is made by Bayer and Primatene which is made by Pfizer behind the counter here in New York USA all the time.

Dear NSA and DEA reading this....By "all the time" I mean I buy a couple boxes a couple times a month and use my ID, lol now we have that cleared up we can move on.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Stop being ignorant, a 12 year old could read the sarcasm with the crack. Youre now doing the opposite of the cardarine study. You're saying that the dosage is safe and that this study tells us its not dangerous. Tell me how many people outside this study are using that dosage for fatloss?

Do you even know why it's controlled in the US?

The sale of ephedrine, one of the precursors of methamphetamine, is strictly controlled and monitored in various countries to prevent the production of illicit methamphetamine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15253668

Not because it's dangerous, but because it's used to make meth.

Did you even read the multiple actual studies I posted?

How many people outside of the MULTIPLE studies?

How about over a quarter of a million in only a seven year period in Denmark alone?

Prescribed ephedrine/caffeine was not associated with a substantially increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in this study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565736/

Just keep digging that hole deeper my friend.

 

[Chados]

Do you even know why it's controlled in the US?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15253668

Not because it's dangerous, but because it's used to make meth.

Did you even read the multiple actual studies I posted?

How many people outside of the MULTIPLE studies?

How about over a quarter of a million in only a seven year period in Denmark alone?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565736/

Just keep digging that hole deeper my friend.

You always tend to skip what I'm saying and argue with something else. I just commented on what you said and you send me the same thing? Answer my question, who use ephedrine at that dosage?

 

[ax1]

So taking small dosages makes it safe? What would kill you first? 160 mg of ephedrine or 160 mg of coffee?

Who is taking 160mg of ephedrine? Nobody is talking big or small dosages, we are talking proven effective doses that are both heavily excepted and proven to work for fat loss in both the bodybuilding and medical community of both caffeine and ephedrine. Its not a small dose or big dose, just the medically researched dose. If you read the studies you will know what these doses are.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Thanks.
But this study states no benefits.
Aren't there countless claims of lipid, cardio and endurance improvement.
I've taken it and it made cardio easier.
I didn't get bloods done. But people have right?

What are you talking about? Did you even read it?

This clinical trial was conducted in Australia (April 2003 to December 2008). The authors concluded that GW501516 increased the hepatic removal of VLDL particles, which might have resulted from decreased apoC-III concentration. GW501516 increased apoA-II production, resulting in an increased concentration of LpA-I: A-II particles. This study elucidates the mechanism of action of this PPARδ agonist on lipoprotein metabolism and supports its potential use in treating dyslipidemia in obesity. All these results were achieved without any significant alteration in body weight or insulin resistance.

GW501516 produced significant changes in HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apoA1, and apoB. Fewer very LDL and larger LDL support a transition toward less atherogenic lipoprotein profiles.

Why am I even posting these things if nobody is even bothering to read them?

 

[Cgkone]

After reading that study in definitely not going to take GW for 104 weeks.