gaining an extra lb or 2 when eating more is pretty much nothing. I do not believe much 'gains' were made in strength or size. I am not completely knocking the substance but I am clearly not the only non responder.... I am only stating truthful facts...
So, previously it was "a few pounds"e...and now it is 1-2 pounds while eating more (you left the "eating more" part out of your analysis the first two times you commented). OK. Regardless of how much weight you actually gained (I'm not sure of you even know to be honest with you), no product can guarantee muscle gains...not even steroids. I know people who have taken SD and gained only 2-3 pounds (which was all I.M water) and the claimed it did "nothing". Of course, this person had no idea how to eat or train for muscle growth (I knew him personally, so after he explained what he was doing it was obvious why he made no gains), which is why all 3 times he used steroids he gained basically nothing.
So yes, there are some people like this...and of course, some people don't notice good results due to **** genetics or some other issue...but it's not the drug's fault.
Aside from that, MK has clearly been shown to provide the expected outward effects in like 99%+ (probably more like 99.9%) of those who use it. Until this last month I had NEVER seen anyone say it did nothing for them...and even you, who is one of the two people I've seen say this, can't make that claim (even though your claims keep changing). MK-677 has done what it is supposed to do in every single test subject in every single clinical study ever conducted. It increased IGF-1 levels and caused weight gain in everyone...and of course, we have the 100's (if not 1,000's at this point) of people who have personally posted their results.
Did you get your IGF-1 levels tested? No, or you would have said so. For all you know they could have gone from 100 to 250, which certainly would have been substantial, but like I said above, even hormones can't guarantee muscle growth in those who don't know how to train and/or eat...or who have horrible genetics...or both.
By the time a drug has been through a dozen clinical trials and used by 1,000's of people successfully--with BARELY ANYONE claiming it doesn't work--I think we can safely say the compound works. In a few years it will likely be a prescription drug for muscle growth/atrophy prevention, as one of the original inventors of the compound is now attempting to have it made into a script drug. Anamorelin, which is a GH secretagogue like MK, is a script drug for muscle growth in Europe...and that is the direction MK is heading.
Anyone who claims MK doesn't work is ignorant. If someone came in and said Anadrol doesn't work, would anyone believe them? Of course not. In the case of drugs like steroids, SARMs, MK, GH, IGF-1, etc...there are only two types of people that don't experience the outward results it is known for--those who don't know how to eat and/or train...or those with **** genetics. There are no other options. When one of these drugs doesn't provide the kind of result someone expects we don't say the drug doesn't "work" or that the individual was a "non-responder". Rather, we say the person either doesn't know how to eat/train, or they have bad genetics (it's possible they could have an underlying medical issue as well). We don't say they are "non-responders" because that implies that the drug produces different physiological effects in those individuals relative to everyone else, which is not the case. The flaw lies with the individual's personal response to those physiological effects, not a failure of the drug to provide those effects. For example, if someone injects testosterone and their T levels goes up 300%, yet they gain no muscle mass, we don't say the drug didn't work or call them non-responders. After all, their T levels went up 300%, so the drug did do what it was supposed to do. Rather, that individual wasn't able to take advantage of that increase in testosterone to build muscle, which there could be a 100 different reasons for.
Let's use GH as another example. If someone uses GH and doesn't lose any fat, it doesn't mean that the person is a "non-responder"...because the drug DID increase the rate of lipolysis in them just like it does in everyone else, but for one reason or another the individual wasn't able to take advantage of that increase in lipolysis to lose fat. Whether it was due to a poor diet, thyroid deficiency, or whatever else, it doesn't matter. The drug still did what it was supposed to do. It's no different with MK. It does what it is supposed to do for everyone, but whether or not it provides the type of outward change that individual is looking for is another situation altogether. Fortunately, MK seems to provide the type of outward results we expect in nearly everyone who takes it.
