The Human Eqivalent Dose

Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
This has come up a fair amount recently and a few people are still unsure of the concept. Whenever a new drug is trialed, it almost always goes through some sort of animal testing before being allowed to enter the market for human use.

Unfortunately it is often presumed that to convert the dose used from a mouse to a human, is to simply multiply the amount a mouse was given by the weight of a human. This is simply not the case (as detailed below). This is an exert from:
Fasebj | Mobile

CORRECT DOSE CALCULATION: AN EXAMPLE

As described above, confusion and concerns emanated from a recent study by Baur*et al.(2)⇓*, where a dose of 22.4 mg/kg (body weight) of resveratrol was used in a mouse study on aging and obesity-related disorders. The media reported that a 60 kg human would have to consume 1344 mg of resveratrol per day in order to receive a like benefit, a serious misinterpretation of the research. Using an average of 2 mg resveratrol per bottle of wine (6)⇓*, this calculation implies that a person would have to drink 672 bottles of red wine to approximate the resveratrol equivalent.

However, the Food and Drug Administration (7)⇓*has suggested that the extrapolation of animal dose to human dose is correctly performed only through normalization to BSA, which often is represented in mg/m2. The human dose equivalent can be more appropriately calculated by using the formula shown in*Fig. 1⇓*. To convert the dose used in a mouse to a dose based on surface area for humans, multiply 22.4 mg/kg (Baur’s mouse dose) by the*Km*factor (3) for a mouse and then divide by the*Km*factor (37) for a human (Table 1⇓*). This calculation results in a human equivalent dose for resveratrol of 1.82 mg/kg, which equates to a 109 mg dose of resveratrol for a 60 kg person.*

I hope this is useful to you all!
 
NoAddedHmones

NoAddedHmones

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
This has come up a fair amount recently and a few people are still unsure of the concept. Whenever a new drug is trialed, it almost always goes through some sort of animal testing before being allowed to enter the market for human use.

Unfortunately it is often presumed that to convert the dose used from a mouse to a human, is to simply multiply the amount a mouse was given by the weight of a human. Or that 1mg in a one kilogram rat is the same as 1mg in a 60 kilogram human. This is simply not the case (as detailed below). This is an exert from:
Fasebj | Mobile

CORRECT DOSE CALCULATION: AN EXAMPLE

As described above, confusion and concerns emanated from a recent study by Baur*et al.(2)⇓*, where a dose of 22.4 mg/kg (body weight) of resveratrol was used in a mouse study on aging and obesity-related disorders. The media reported that a 60 kg human would have to consume 1344 mg of resveratrol per day in order to receive a like benefit, a serious misinterpretation of the research. Using an average of 2 mg resveratrol per bottle of wine (6)⇓*, this calculation implies that a person would have to drink 672 bottles of red wine to approximate the resveratrol equivalent.

However, the Food and Drug Administration (7)⇓*has suggested that the extrapolation of animal dose to human dose is correctly performed only through normalization to BSA, which often is represented in mg/m2. The human dose equivalent can be more appropriately calculated by using the formula shown in*Fig. 1⇓*. To convert the dose used in a mouse to a dose based on surface area for humans, multiply 22.4 mg/kg (Baur’s mouse dose) by the*Km*factor (3) for a mouse and then divide by the*Km*factor (37) for a human (Table 1⇓*). This calculation results in a human equivalent dose for resveratrol of 1.82 mg/kg, which equates to a 109 mg dose of resveratrol for a 60 kg person.*

I hope this is useful to you all!
Great thread man!
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
Too funny man! I used an example of the BSA in the Arecoline thread, and used that exact reference too! LOL!
 
zman86

zman86

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Yes I found that site also after searching "BSA conversion" on yahoo, it was the very first link.

So base on the GW testing done on the male mice were 5, 15, 30 (mg/kg) for the first 6 weeks and 5, 20, 40 (mg/kg) for the rest of the 104 weeks.

Lets calculate the HED using the BSA conversion for a 60kg human male.

5mg/kg=24.3mg
15=72.9
30=145.8
40=194.4

The rats were getting papilloma in stomach and tongue, and adenoma in harderian glands at ≥5mg/kg(HED=24.3mg). The other cancerous developments were at 15+(no one is going to take over 72.9mg of GW lol). So let say those mice has the same "genetic" make-up as humans, a 60kg male will develop tongue and stomach cancer over long term use of GW at a daily dose over 24.3mg?

Edit: Recommended dosage for GW is 7-21mg ED(OL Cardar1ine), with 14mg as the recommended sweet spot.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Yes I found that site also after searching "BSA conversion" on yahoo, it was the very first link.

So base on the GW testing done on the male mice were 5, 15, 30 (mg/kg) for the first 6 weeks and 5, 20, 40 (mg/kg) for the rest of the 104 weeks.

Lets calculate the HED using the BSA conversion for a 60kg human male.

5mg/kg=24.3mg
15=72.9
30=145.8
40=194.4

The rats were getting papilloma in stomach and tongue, and adenoma in harderian glands at ≥5mg/kg(HED=24.3mg). The other cancerous developments were at 15+. So let say those mice has the same "genetic" make-up as humans, a 60kg male will develop tongue and stomach cancer over long term use of GW at a daily dose over 24.3mg?
I can do the calculation when I'm back at my comp to confirm :)
 
zman86

zman86

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
We also have to take into consideration that the cancer proliferation were developed over periods of the research time (104 weeks). The average life span of a laboratory mice is 2 years (96 weeks), 4 weeks mice age is equivalent to how many human years? lol

If a 60kg guy takes 24-30mg of GW ed for a couple years straight(5-6 weeks mice age?), and he gets some kind of cancer, then yeah he fk up. Thats even assuming those mices has same genetic make-up as humans.

Im not trying to defend GW, but there are just way too many factors involve. In the end, if one is going to use any chemical compounds(clen, nolva, whatever) use at own risk.
 
T-Bone

T-Bone

Banned
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
We also have to take into consideration that the cancer proliferation were developed over periods of the research time (104 weeks). The average life span of a laboratory mice is 2 years (96 weeks), 4 weeks mice age is equivalent to how many human years? lol

If a 60kg guy takes 24-30mg of GW ed for a couple years straight(5-6 weeks mice age?), and he gets some kind of cancer, then yeah he fk up. Thats even assuming those mices has same genetic make-up as humans.

Im not trying to defend GW, but there are just way too many factors involve. In the end, if one is going to use any chemical compounds(clen, nolva, whatever) use at own risk.
Except GW caused cancer at all dosages,

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2013/03/25/wada-issues-alert-on-toxic-ped.htm
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
We also have to take into consideration that the cancer proliferation were developed over periods of the research time (104 weeks). The average life span of a laboratory mice is 2 years (96 weeks), 4 weeks mice age is equivalent to how many human years? lol

If a 60kg guy takes 24-30mg of GW ed for a couple years straight(5-6 weeks mice age?), and he gets some kind of cancer, then yeah he fk up. Thats even assuming those mices has same genetic make-up as humans.

Im not trying to defend GW, but there are just way too many factors involve. In the end, if one is going to use any chemical compounds(clen, nolva, whatever) use at own risk.
There are some key factors that need to be considered:

For some strage reason, a pharmaceutical company who invested a lot of money into GW stopped pursuing it. Then it got picked up by the supplement industry which invests no money into pursuing its safety but people buy it because it looks promising. Problem is, the safety data shows us that it is potentially dangerous.

It shows it can cause cancerous cells to multiply at all doses, this isn't something to be taken lightly. We have no other evidence to go off and yet people say "so what, everything causes cancer". There is a difference between a unnaturally normal amount of something and something that causes a massive spread of cancerous cells at all dosages.

Also you assume the life span equates to a couple of years, but can you be 100% confident in that statement? I am not bashing anyone here, but for those who are unaware or wanting to look into GW, they should be made aware that the data doesnt swing in its favour. If you choose to pursue it, then go crazy, but for those who do not research before they buy, I feel it is reasonable to present the data as it is. Unfortunately that other thread got locked because people turned nasty over it.

This thread was also made because I see it often being confused on how to scale dosages
 
Chrisko

Chrisko

Banned
Awards
0
There are some key factors that need to be considered:

For some strage reason, a pharmaceutical company who invested a lot of money into GW stopped pursuing it. Then it got picked up by the supplement industry which invests no money into pursuing its safety but people buy it because it looks promising. Problem is, the safety data shows us that it is potentially dangerous.

It shows it can cause cancerous cells to multiply at all doses, this isn't something to be taken lightly. We have no other evidence to go off and yet people say "so what, everything causes cancer". There is a difference between a unnaturally normal amount of something and something that causes a massive spread of cancerous cells at all dosages.


This thread was also made because I see it often being confused on how to scale dosages
This is what I was trying to convey in the thread that was locked but it seemed as though I was being **** on for it. Maybe I wasn't but that is the way it felt.( who knows, maybe I should just sack up. And I am not even on clomid. Haha) There are supp companies that are ethical but there are a lot that are not.

Just like the pharmaceutical companies, it is all about the money.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
I canceled my BO'd GW. Too much smoke for there not to be a fire. With a Deficit, Yohimbine, Ephedrine, Topical Clen w/Eviscerate/VasoBurn - no need to risk anything for fat loss - my physique doesn't make me any money. And that's if the stuff was even a fat melter... which is questionable, to say the least.
 
TNlifting

TNlifting

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Does this only apply to GW or is it for other SARMs (particularly ostarine) as well? I'm guessing we aren't really sure yet?
 
pogue

pogue

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Is there a different method to calculate the dosage if a different lab animal was used other than a rat?

We also have to take into consideration that the cancer proliferation were developed over periods of the research time (104 weeks). The average life span of a laboratory mice is 2 years (96 weeks), 4 weeks mice age is equivalent to how many human years? lol

If a 60kg guy takes 24-30mg of GW ed for a couple years straight(5-6 weeks mice age?), and he gets some kind of cancer, then yeah he fk up. Thats even assuming those mices has same genetic make-up as humans.

Im not trying to defend GW, but there are just way too many factors involve. In the end, if one is going to use any chemical compounds(clen, nolva, whatever) use at own risk.
Most other chemical compounds that the bodybuilding community use have a much wider margin of known data about them and often have decades of usage - both as a pharmaceutical ingredient and 'broscience' where the accumulation of knowledge by many people has enhanced the way we use these compounds. With SARMs and these other research ingredients we essentially have neither of those. The available data on them is so small we can't really make a proper educated guess on their usage and safety if there aren't any human studies done. This seems especially true with GW.
 
bighulksmash

bighulksmash

Legend
Awards
0
Is there a different method to calculate the dosage if a different lab animal was used other than a rat?



Most other chemical compounds that the bodybuilding community use have a much wider margin of known data about them and often have decades of usage - both as a pharmaceutical ingredient and 'broscience' where the accumulation of knowledge by many people has enhanced the way we use these compounds. With SARMs and these other research ingredients we essentially have neither of those. The available data on them is so small we can't really make a proper educated guess on their usage and safety if there aren't any human studies done. This seems especially true with GW.
Thats the problem there were human studies done and nothing was reported over the course of 7 years.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
Is there a different method to calculate the dosage if a different lab animal was used other than a rat?

The BSA Chart lists a ton of animals - if you happen to be using Platypus' or something, there is a generic formula using body weight (but it is still a formula, not a straight across addition/multiplication problem). Search the Googs, the FDA had a whole .pdf on BSA

Edit: Here 'tis - h t t p : / / w w w .fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../Guidances/UCM078932.pdf
 
T-Bone

T-Bone

Banned
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
That weblink doesn't give any data on that statement.

But yes from the same study posted in the other thread the proliferation of cancer cells at all doses happened for female mice and shorten their life span.
It did a while back but the link in the article is broken.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
The BSA Chart lists a ton of animals - if you happen to be using Platypus' or something, there is a generic formula using body weight (but it is still a formula, not a straight across addition/multiplication problem). Search the Googs, the FDA had a whole .pdf on BSA

Edit: Here 'tis - h t t p : / / w w w .fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../Guidances/UCM078932.pdf
Lol platypus.
 
Chrisko

Chrisko

Banned
Awards
0
There is an interesting write up here in the news section of this site. I wanted to post a link but can't due to post count. It is about Sarms and some side effects.
 
T-Bone

T-Bone

Banned
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
There is an interesting write up here in the news section of this site. I wanted to post a link but can't due to post count. It is about Sarms and some side effects.
Most of the articles posted in that section are full of bro-science and opinion based.
 
NoAddedHmones

NoAddedHmones

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
Most of the articles posted in that section are full of bro-science and opinion based.
Lol stopped reading after lgd is 12x more "androgenic" than osta. Also Sarms1 lololol
 
JeremyNG25

JeremyNG25

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
So GW at 5 mg will give me cancer if I use it for 28 days?
 
zman86

zman86

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
So GW at 5 mg will give me cancer if I use it for 28 days?
Yes you will if you have the genetics of a lab mice.

For humans, not enough research has been done, but the compound has been sold as RC for many years now and I haven't heard anything cancer related.
 
pogue

pogue

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Yes you will if you have the genetics of a lab mice.

For humans, not enough research has been done, but the compound has been sold as RC for many years now and I haven't heard anything cancer related.
Cancer can take years or decades to develop.
 
Chrisko

Chrisko

Banned
Awards
0
Are most of them really that bad? I have read some that were awful but I have read some that were pretty interesting.
 
Chrisko

Chrisko

Banned
Awards
0
It was regarding all of the articles on this site. What are u the forum nazi? Jeez.
 
T-Bone

T-Bone

Banned
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
It was regarding all of the articles on this site. What are the forum nazi? Jeez.
Oh ok, just saying if don't quote it's likely not many people will know what you are talking about. At least I had no clue anyway. Yes most of the articles are silly.
 
bighulksmash

bighulksmash

Legend
Awards
0
It was regarding all of the articles on this site. What are the forum nazi? Jeez.
Have u seen the 2003 chronicles of Bulgarianburritoboy ? He touches on the subjects you are looking for.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
Are most of them really that bad? I have read some that were awful but I have read some that were pretty interesting.
To the Internet Ph.D., all articles on the Internet have flaws. Everything is wrong and broscience.
 
rtmilburn

rtmilburn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
To the Internet Ph.D., all articles on the Internet have flaws. Everything is wrong and broscience.
Well he is right tho. There was an article that was posted on sarms and it said gw was a sarm(which it isnt) but then he made a big deal over mk677 not being a sarm. Sure they are right mk677 isnt sarm. However, neither is gw. Plus there was so much borscience in it. The one that made me laugh was the method of which these sarms give gyno. Then he later went on to say hcgenerate was an adequate pct.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
Well he is right tho. There was an article that was posted on sarms and it said gw was a sarm(which it isnt) however it made a big deal over mk677 not being a sarm. Sure they are right mk677 isnt sarm. However, neither is gw. Plus there was so much borscience in it. The one that made me laugh was the method of which these sarms give gyno. Then he later went on to say hcgenerate was an adequate pct.
Then the next time we post an article from suppversity, I'll await your article to respond. We post what's new, not with what you agree with 100%. To make a blanket statement that they are all silly....is silly.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
rtmilburn

rtmilburn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Constant critics without anything to back it up.
Dont get me wrong i love this site and love most of those article but please stop using stuff from elitefitness/ergolog and t-nation(some times they have a decent articles but most of the time crap)
 
rascal14

rascal14

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • RockStar
I read a book on how to care for a dog so I'm basically a doctor. You all can F off.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
Dont get me wrong i love this site and love most of those article but please stop using stuff from elitefitness/ergolog

I like the ergo log articles
If you get a note from Jeremy, the I might consider it. Until then, I post whats new....not what I think is 100% correct.
 
Chrisko

Chrisko

Banned
Awards
0
Constant critics without anything to back it up.
Not mentioning anyone in particular but this seems to happen quite often in forum conversations. It is funny to read some of these posts.
 
JeremyNG25

JeremyNG25

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Not mentioning anyone in particular but this seems to happen quite often in forum conversations. It is funny to read some of these posts.
The advice I hear spewed around at gym is on a completely different level. Thank god it's nothing like that.
 

Top