Another GW501516 Thread
- 01-22-2014, 01:56 PM
Another GW501516 Thread
Alright, so I've known about this substance for a couple years but never heard too much about it until recently and have been researching for the past couple weeks. What I don't see in my research is specific results. I realize that results vary for everyone, but everyone says this is such a great fat burner and the best out there, but nobody says HOW good it is. With DNP a lot of people will tell you that you could lose up to a pound of fat in a day, and easily a half pound - is there any info out there to give an idea of what to expect with GW501516?
Also, this seems like a wonder drug with NO side effects while you use the product. I am aware that it may turn fast twitch muscles to slow twitch (which may have some drawbacks in my eyes) and then there is the obvious cancer issue.
So, my questions are this:
1. What do you guys think about the slow-twitch muscle fiber conversion? Is this something that may effect performance long-run? Any research to tell the degree of this effect or at least allow for an educated guess?
2. It seems that people fall into 2 categories with the cancer topic - the first being "Oh please. Those studies are completely flawed. Don't even think about it!" or the later being, "Cancer- I won't touch it with a 10 foot pole." What are your thoughts and WHY do you think this? Studies would be greatly appreciated.
My major concern here, which was mentioned on another thread, is that this drug SEEMS so promising and GSK spent YEARS researching this and then abandoned it. It isn't like they got a single study that suggested cancer and then said, "Oh, wait, no way. Forget this." Their first study suggesting cancer seemed to come around 2002-2003 and they pushed forward with it even when people were starting to wonder. It seems they WANTED to bring this to market, and then in 2008 they just abandoned it after more cancer data. I realize that they may have realized that the perception of the product causing cancer may be too much to overcome, and perhaps there were other business issues at hand - maybe they had gone beyond budget and GSK saw greater returns in another area of research, or maybe they have another drug that does the same thing that seems more promising, etc. Who knows - but it still raises a red flag, especially since they persevered for about 5 years after people started worrying about cancer....
Finally, anyone ever run this with DNP or would this be stupid? Well, I know it would be perceived as stupid by many anyway ...but you know what I'm getting at. I'm thinking it could be a very potent combo, or maybe they would be good to use back-to-back. i.e. DNP for 2 weeks and then GW for 2 weeks, etc. - allowing for longer cycles with reduced risk.
I've been thinking of running a DNP cycle at some point in time - but I would try to manage my risks and would be running 200 mg for my first cycle with no bumps, and then 200 mg/400 mg for my second cycle and I don't ever see a need to go beyond 400 mg because I can be patient about the fat loss - but I just don't want to be. I have about 80 pounds of fat to lose at this point and these drugs would obviously speed up progress and they really would provide the most bang for the buck over supplements...
- 01-22-2014, 05:06 PM
well it cause cancer in rats, we are not rats
does this mean it causes cancer in people? well there is no way of knowing, it's pointless to speculate
it's up to you really, if you decide to go through with this stick to just one product
I think the money can be spent on better things though
- 01-22-2014, 06:26 PM
Regarding the cancer, the dosages need to be stated. I see suggested use on most boards as around 5-20mg a day. In those studies they had anywhere from 5mg-40mg/kg on the rats. I don't recall specifically which dosage groups were the cancer-riddled ones, or even if it was contained to a specific group, but that means for a guy around 200lbs the dosage would be anywhere from 450mg(5mg/kg) to 3600mg(40mg/kg).
Who might get cancer first, the fella who smokes 5 cigarettes a day or the fella who smokes several hundred, or even several thousand?
Of course, I haven't seen any studies regarding human trials so nothing is 100%. All I've encountered are anecdotal reports and thus far everyone seems to either lose a bit of bodyfat and gain some cardio or see nothing at all, though I suspect this might be supplier-dependent.
Just my two cents, amigo.
Edit: See also "Help me with GW-501516"If you start a thread about a cycle with four methyls or the phrase NEED HELP!!!, you should probably just go kill yourself.
01-24-2014, 03:46 PM
Thanks for taking the time to answer guys. My concern isn't necessarily the cancer in rats at high doses. From what I've seen, it looks like they refer to it causing cancer "at all doses", which I don't know which doses they used because I haven't seen the full articles and haven't had enough time to research. I'd like to find some studies that showed lower doses haven't caused cancer...or something along those lines.
My big concern is that a pharm company that once stuck to their guns on this product in light of the cancer findings turned around and abandoned it after spending money on the research. I find that to be a big red flag and wonder what they found, I suspect it was more than a casual link to cancer in mice.
Alex, what other products do you think would be better to spend money on? My feeling is that DNP will provide the best bang for the buck, although it is definitely a dangerous route that requires knowledge. None of the supplements on the market, in my eyes, would even come close to the results. Sodium Usniate/Usnea were effective and I can find that in bulk, but I feel that DNP will be more effective and have fewer side effects long term, provided I don't kill myself...I had used Lipokinetix way back in the day with no noticeable sides and it worked great, but I'm older and the liver thing is always a concern....
01-24-2014, 04:05 PM
01-24-2014, 04:14 PM
01-25-2014, 10:55 AM
Again, they don't seem to say much besides "Cancer definitely happened at some point." We're a scientific people... give us specific data. How long into the study? At what dose? How many rats that completed the trial without incident? I can certainly appreciate the grim nature of that degree of cancer occurrence, though.
If you start a thread about a cycle with four methyls or the phrase NEED HELP!!!, you should probably just go kill yourself.
01-25-2014, 11:10 AM
I agree with this, and that is kind of the nature of this thread - I want more data so that I can make an educated decision. For instance, DNP has dangers and risks, but the data is there so that you can get a good handle on those risks, how to manage them, etc. We are scientific, but without the data we are kind of shooting in the dark. And given the fact that GSK dumped a TON of cash into this project over 10-15 years and tried to get it through even in light of the cancer topic, they suddenly dropped it without real explanation in 2008. Shooting in the dark, with little data and the risk of becoming "riddled with cancer at all doses" seems (obviously) not worth it, but it smacks of the typical fear mongering with new substances. I would love to see some data that gave better insight.
Within that information is a comment that the action of these drugs is 10-1,000X stronger in humans than in rats. This suggests the reason why 20 mg has such an effect on humans, and why they were giving the larger doses to rats. It also suggests 1 of two possible scenarios to me - 1 is that ALL of the effects are 10-1,000X stronger and the "Oh yeah the rats got cancer but they were taking the equivalent of 500-1,000 mg of this stuff for a human" argument is completely flawed, because the cancer effects could occur at a much smaller dose.
The second scenario is that the PPAR effects ONLY are stronger, and the drug is thus MUCH safer for humans because the effective dose is 1/10th - 1/1,000th of what it would take to cause cancer in a rat.
So this little tidbit could suggest it is MORE dangerous, or much safer for a human. Since GSK dropped it and it never made it to stage III, I think it only wise to lean towards the dangerous conclusion...
01-25-2014, 11:20 AM
01-25-2014, 11:37 AM
Thanks fueled, and you are 100% correct. There is a formula, but all you ever see on the boards is "the rats took an equivalent of 500 mg" - but never see the actual dose so I don't know if that is before body surface area conversions and proper calculations, or just straight math. It could be that someone did the math and said, "Yeah, that is the equiv. of a human taking 500 mg." or it could be that they just said, "The rat weighs 30 grams and took X amount" and multiplied (which is incorrect).
Either way, it looks like the effects may be 10-1000 fold stronger in humans at the equivalent dose! So if you did the math properly and determined that it was equivelant to 500 mg, then you would need to account for the strength increase in humans, and you'd be looking at a max dose of 50 mg for the same effects...and then the question is, would these same effects be limited to just the positive effects, or would they be across the board?
01-25-2014, 11:43 AM
GW (PPar modulator) does not potentiate tumorigemesis in humans the way it does in rats. Here is some info I dug up.
Ligands for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) increase skeletal muscle fatty acid catabolism, improve insulin sensitivity, increase serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, elicit anti-inflammatory activity and induce terminal differentiation. Contradictory findings are also reported suggesting that PPARβ/δ ligands potentiate tumorigenesis by increasing cell proliferation, by inhibiting apoptosis through phosphorylation of Akt and by increasing cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression. The contradictory findings could be due to differences in the model system (cancer cell line versus in vivo), differences in cell culture conditions (with and without serum) or differences in ligands. The present study examined the effect of two different PPARβ/δ ligands (GW0742 and GW501516) in human cancer cell lines (HT29, HCT116, LS–174T, HepG2 and HuH7) cultured in the presence or absence of serum and compared in vitro analysis with in vivo analysis. Neither PPARβ/δ ligand increased cell growth or phosphorylation of Akt and no increase in the expression of VEGF or COX2 were detected in any cancer cell line in the presence or absence of serum. Similarly, liver, colon and colon polyps from mice administered these PPARβ/δ ligands in vivo did not exhibit changes in these markers. Results from these studies demonstrate that serum withdrawal and/or differences in ligands do not underlie the disparity in responses reported in the literature. The quantitative nature of the present findings are inconsistent with the hypothesis that cancer cell lines respond differentially as compared with normal cells, and provide further evidence that PPARβ/δ ligands do not potentiate tumorigenesis.
01-26-2014, 11:39 AM
Might we get the source for this material? I've not seen that text on any board whatsoever, which is curious considering how directly relevant to this discussion it is.
If you start a thread about a cycle with four methyls or the phrase NEED HELP!!!, you should probably just go kill yourself.
01-26-2014, 09:55 PM
01-27-2014, 05:23 PM
I understand completely that some things cause cancer in rats that don't in humans, but some things cause cancer in rats AND humans. I would love SOME evidence to make a judgement on GW from this perspective.
The fact that Nolvadex doesn't cause cancer in humans but does in rats does NOT mean you can apply the logic of "things that cause cancer in rats don't in humans", it means it might not. It means we have no definitive data.
What the FDA site warns on is that ALL of this class of drugs caused cancer in rats, across a wide spectrum of tissue, and this means that the likelihood in humans is very good. So if anything, the data leans toward cancer, and we need some specific data to skew it back - but that may not be out there at all...I'm not sure it is. And if everything leans toward problems, the objective, intelligent thing to decide, despite me wanting this stuff to be safe and effective (trust me I do), is that it really can cause problems...
01-28-2014, 07:39 AM
I like being the devils advocate with you RH - you find some good stuff. I am going to look at this when I get some time later today.
And yes - the FDA is a strange entity. Their approval or disapproval in my eyes isn't the deciding factor, as many of their approved drugs are worse than drugs they haven't approved and their are a lot of politics involved - but when they fight something their controllers (pharma companies) have spent money on, it raises questions.
02-03-2014, 07:02 PM
This is my first post - I have been looking into GW for the past couple days and signed up just to read this thread, as it is the most recent on any of the forums out there. I was hoping to stumble upon some unknown study that would throw some more favorable light on the subject of GW. Its funny I was actually thinking, "well if i was an investigative reporter how would I get my story?" The story here or the one that is being withheld is why did GSK stop the trials? The US headquarters is in Parsippany NJ which is about 15 min from me, maybe I can walk in an ask? :0 I came across this which was interesting:
http: //www .gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com/compounds/gw501516#ps They give a telephone number to the left of the clickable studies for more info - perhaps someone would like to do some investigative reporting of their own? When you nail down on the studies in the link provided, it gives myriad of study parameters and some interesting outcomes one of which is safety. I have yet to come across this particular data group so wanted to share it with you. Ill let you guys sift through it and reply back. For the record this looks very interesting to me as a cyclist but as I get older 33, which is not that old, i find myself less willing to try "risky" sups that 10 years ago would have been a no brainer for me. I am such a hypochondriac now that i am not even sure I could take it and feel comfortable knowing the cancer risk. I am reminded of the Seinfeld where George thinks he has cancer...is it cancer is it cancer!!
Similar Forum Threads
- By slicknick88 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 22Last Post: 04-25-2005, 08:30 PM
- By MaynardMeek in forum SupplementsReplies: 0Last Post: 02-04-2005, 09:41 AM
- By Crimson_Soul in forum AnabolicsReplies: 24Last Post: 02-02-2005, 12:39 PM
- By Ribosome in forum AnabolicsReplies: 11Last Post: 01-25-2005, 10:22 PM
- By f1afreak in forum AnabolicsReplies: 9Last Post: 01-19-2004, 08:46 AM