Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Any Exhaustive Experts on Cardarine, Etc.?

Chados said:
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?
Click to expand...
Over a quarter of a million people in a seven year span in Denmark alone. Do you know how to read?
 
Chados said:
So taking small dosages makes it safe? What would kill you first? 160 mg of ephedrine or 160 mg of coffee?
Click to expand...
That's insane. The effective dose of ephedrine is way less than 160mg. Why would anyone use much more than the effective dose? You're making no sense man. Doses are relative...
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Over a quarter of a million people in a seven year span in Denmark alone. Do you know how to read?
Click to expand...

That's not my question. Since you won't answer me ask you this Invalid Link Removed

Does this seem safe? Would you run this and say it has no effect on my cardio vascular system?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
That's insane. The effective dose of ephedrine is way less than 160mg. Why would anyone use much more than the effective dose? You're making no sense man. Doses are relative...
Click to expand...

Yes but people do run it that high. The thing with stimulants is that they are mostly safe for people with no health problems and at small doses. The bad thing is that we know they can cause instant death and I have no idea what makes people believe ephedrine is different. Again small doses-> healthy people
 
Chados said:
That's not my question. Since you won't answer me ask you this Invalid Link Removed

Does this seem safe? Would you run this and say it has no effect on my cardio vascular system?
Click to expand...
Yes, I would say it's safe.
Side effects (tremor, insomnia and dizziness) were transient and after eight weeks of treatment they had reached placebo levels. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure fell similarly in all four groups.
Click to expand...
Do you know what transient means? After a few weeks of use, the side effects were no different than placebo. That's literally the definition of safe. What are you even arguing? Just keep digging that hole man.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Yes, I would say it's safe.

Do you know what transient means? After a few weeks of use, the side effects were no different than placebo. That's literally the definition of safe. What are you even arguing? Just keep digging that hole man.
Click to expand...

Alright so I can run that infinitely?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
That's insane. The effective dose of ephedrine is way less than 160mg. Why would anyone use much more than the effective dose? You're making no sense man. Doses are relative...
Click to expand...

Im trying to figure out how the hell he came up with 160mg? Did he ask a Ouija board?

Invalid Link Removed
 
Chados said:
Alright so I can run that infinitely?
Click to expand...
According to the research, you can run it safely for multiple months. As to why you'd run anything "indefinitely," well, it makes about as much sense as everything else you've been saying...
Chados said:
Yes but people do run it that high. The thing with stimulants is that they are mostly safe for people with no health problems and at small doses. The bad thing is that we know they can cause instant death and I have no idea what makes people believe ephedrine is different. Again small doses-> healthy people
Click to expand...
Instant death? With ephedrine? Get out of here. You're grasping at straws that don't even exist.
ax1 said:
Im trying to figure out how the hell he came up with 160mg? Did he ask a Ouija board?

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
No idea. Why are we still even trying here man?
 
Cgkone said:
Easy tough guy. I was talking about this part. Ill admit I skimmed through it
Click to expand...
It's just frustrating to take the time to explain things and post links to have people clearly not read them. If you didn't have time to actually read it yet, that's fine, I get it, but maybe wait to talk about it until you do read it.
 
I'm not sure why I can't post even attachments now.
But at the end of the ink you posted there is a 2018 section that's states " no known benefits"
Did I read that wrong?
 
Cgkone said:
I'm not sure why I can't post even attachments now.
But at the end of the ink you posted there is a 2018 section that's states " no known benefits"
Did I read that wrong?
Click to expand...
Yeah, you did.
Benefits: There have been no clearly substantiated benefits based on clinical data or scientific evidence. The substance was initially trialled in a small number of early phase trials for potential uses in dyslipidaemia, obesity and diabetes. Limited data show that cardarine has an effect on PPARδ receptors, with effects on skeletal muscle, fat and glucose metabolism.
Click to expand...
One or two small scale, short term studies is insufficient to "prove" anything really. More studies likely would have confirmed these benefits, but the adverse effects observed in rodents essentially was a death sentence to further human studies, so we'll likely never know. GSK and Ligand have already moved on to developing an alternative that they hope has a more favorable safety profile.

If you read through the whole thing, it'll answer all of these questions, ranging from the human studies (benefits, doses, duration, etc) to the rodent studies and the in vitro studies.
 
Chados said:
Invalid Link Removed straight from nature
Click to expand...
Come on man. You're countering multiple double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, and a review of over a QUARTER OF A MILLION people with a case report with a grand total of SIX subjects and no blinding, or even a placebo group?

Also, how many times do I have to tell you, epedra is not the same thing as ephedrine (ephedrine HCL). If you can't understand this simple concept, you are clearly not in a position to be talking about the safety of ephedrine.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Yeah, you did.

One or two small scale, short term studies is insufficient to "prove" anything really. More studies likely would have confirmed these benefits, but the adverse effects observed in rodents essentially was a death sentence to further human studies, so we'll likely never know. GSK and Ligand have already moved on to developing an alternative that they hope has a more favorable safety profile.

If you read through the whole thing, it'll answer all of these questions, ranging from the human studies (benefits, doses, duration, etc) to the rodent studies and the in vitro studies.
Click to expand...
In your opinion, were the doses given to the rats ridiculously large. Because that's the general consensus here on AM. The idea is that they gave the rats such a huge dose for so long that its crazy to conclude anything from that.
 
Cgkone said:
In your opinion, were the doses given to the rats ridiculously large. Because that's the general consensus here on AM. The idea is that they gave the rats such a huge dose for so long that its crazy to conclude anything from that.
Click to expand...
Nope, the doses were actually VERY moderate, often close to what humans use. Anyone claiming that they were very large doesn't know what HED conversion is, and has no place talking about the studies. I can do the math for you if you want. When you take the mg/kg dose from rats to humans, you have to multiply it by 0.16 (0.08 for mice). Failing to do this is what leads people to claiming that the doses were very large when they weren't.

You'll see doses as low as 3 and 5 mg/kg having some adverse effects in rats.

Multiply these by 0.16, then 60kg for the weight of a human, and you get 28.8 and 48mg. That's approximately the same as the 20-25mg a lot of people use, up to twice that dose. The FDA recommends a factor of safety of 10 when going from animal to human studies, so the dose that was found to be safe in animals, convert that to the human dose, and divide it by 10. So 28.8mg / 10 = 2.88mg, or 48mg / 10 = 4.8mg. But these weren't even "safe," so our starting dose would have to be even lower than this.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Nope, the doses were actually VERY moderate, often close to what humans use. Anyone claiming that they were very large doesn't know what HED conversion is, and has no place talking about the studies. I can do the math for you if you want. When you take the mg/kg dose from rats to humans, you have to multiply it by 0.16 (0.08 for mice). Failing to do this is what leads people to claiming that the doses were very large when they weren't.

You'll see doses as low as 3 and 5 mg/kg having some adverse effects in rats.

Multiply these by 0.16, then 60kg for the weight of a human, and you get 28.8 and 48mg. That's approximately the same as the 20-25mg a lot of people use, up to twice that dose. The FDA recommends a factor of safety of 10 when going from animal to human studies, so the dose that was found to be safe in animals, convert that to the human dose, and divide it by 10. So 28.8mg / 10 = 2.88mg, or 48mg / 10 = 4.8mg. But these weren't even "safe," so our starting dose would have to be even lower than this.
Click to expand...
Now, they were not safe after....104 weeks?
What was the time frame?
 
Chados said:
Invalid Link Removed straight from nature
Click to expand...

First off, thats ephedra, go back and clearly start explaining the differences. Now lets just compare for what it is, we have posted studies of hundreds of thousands of people who have had data documented on them including medical history from the start from beginning of prescription and on through time and here we have 6 patients who out of 10s of millions of users happen to have a heart issue at time of taking ephedra. Now, do we have their medical history and data documented in that study???????? Could it be possible that out of 10s of millions of people 6 could have had a pre-existing condition that was irritated with stimulants? If 7 people actively taking ephedra were diagnosed with cancer of 10s of millions of users would that be reason to declare ephedra as a carcinogen and unsafe? What if 8 broke their leg? Vertigo????

Unfortunately (actually fortunately) there is no substance on that Pubmed post, the do link to the full case but you have to be a subscriber to it.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Come on man. You're countering multiple double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, and a review of over a QUARTER OF A MILLION people with a case report with a grand total of SIX subjects and no blinding, or even a placebo group?

Also, how many times do I have to tell you, epedra is not the same thing as ephedrine (ephedrine HCL). If you can't understand this simple concept, you are clearly not in a position to be talking about the safety of ephedrine.
Click to expand...

If ephedra is dangerous ephedrine should be too right? It actually seems that ephedra is safer than ephedrine.

I can find countless of studies from the sites you give me. Not all are good, again you're arguing that it's safe. Now what's safe? That you won't die with low dosage? I dont believe it's safe and regardless of how much you post I can't imagine it being safe. I can believe it's safer than cocain.

Ephedrine is a potentially dangerous natural compound; as of 2004 the US Food and Drug Administration had received over 18,000 reports of adverse effects in people using it.[19].

You're doing the exact same thing as with cardarine, going back to the 90s
 
Cgkone said:
In your opinion, were the doses given to the rats ridiculously large. Because that's the general consensus here on AM. The idea is that they gave the rats such a huge dose for so long that its crazy to conclude anything from that.
Click to expand...

As for GW I still think its hard to really translate what happens with rats on humans. I mean we can find out ratio/dosage for rat vs human and figure that part out but we dunno if that really even means anything. Less can be more on humans, or vice versa. We dont know we can only assume and hope for more real human research.
 
Chados said:
If ephedra is dangerous ephedrine should be too right? It actually seems that ephedra is safer than ephedrine.

I can find countless of studies from the sites you give me. Not all are good, again you're arguing that it's safe. Now what's safe? That you won't die with low dosage? I dont believe it's safe and regardless of how much you post I can't imagine it being safe. I can believe it's safer than cocain.

Ephedrine is a potentially dangerous natural compound; as of 2004 the US Food and Drug Administration had received over 18,000 reports of adverse effects in people using it.[19].

You're doing the exact same thing as with cardarine, going back to the 90s
Click to expand...
No, there are other components in ephedra not present in ephedrine HCL that can be dangerous, and ephedra is also most often unstandardized; you have no idea how much ephedrine you're getting, or how other compounds may potentiate or alter its effects. You say "it seems that ephedra is safer than ephedrine," but you support this with nothing, and it directly contradicts the evidence and the consensus among studies and the research.

Also, not all adverse effects are created equal. Not being able to sleep because you had a cup of coffee to close to bedtime is an "adverse effect." You're so illogical, and you're reaching at straws. Just admit you were mistaken. I can respect that. We all make mistakes. Standing firm in your beliefs is only admirable when based on the truth; standing firm when you're shown to be wrong is the strength of a madman, not a healthy person, and is not admirable.

I'm done going back and forth with you; you clearly lack basic reading comprehension and critical thinking ability.
 
ax1 said:
First off, thats ephedra, go back and clearly start explaining the differences. Now lets just compare for what it is, we have posted studies of hundreds of thousands of people who have had data documented on them including medical history from the start from beginning of prescription and on through time and here we have 6 patients who out of 10s of millions of users happen to have a heart issue at time of taking ephedra. Now, do we have their medical history and data documented in that study???????? Could it be possible that out of 10s of millions of people 6 could have had a pre-existing condition that was irritated with stimulants? If 7 people actively taking ephedra were diagnosed with cancer of 10s of millions of users would that be reason to declare ephedra as a carcinogen and unsafe? What if 8 broke their leg? Vertigo????

Unfortunately (actually fortunately) there is no substance on that Pubmed post, the do link to the full case but you have to be a subscriber to it.
Click to expand...

Of course it can. Maybe it's safer than eating a lemon but the fact is that you have studies with few individuals having problems done with know a few individuals and countless reports of people having side effects.
 
Cgkone said:
Now, they were not safe after....104 weeks?
What was the time frame?
Click to expand...
There were shorter duration studies as well. Please, just read the review man. It'll answer all of the questions you're asking. If you read it all, and be honest, I'll be happy to answer any more questions you have and have a discussion. Sound good?
 
ax1 said:
As for GW I still think its hard to really translate what happens with rats on humans. I mean we can find out ratio/dosage for rat vs human and figure that part out but we dunno if that really even means anything. Less can be more on humans, or vice versa. We dont know we can only assume and hope for more real human research.
Click to expand...
True. Just the first I've heard broken down the way muscle up does.
First I've heard say the ratios were valid.
 
ax1 said:
First off, thats ephedra, go back and clearly start explaining the differences. Now lets just compare for what it is, we have posted studies of hundreds of thousands of people who have had data documented on them including medical history from the start from beginning of prescription and on through time and here we have 6 patients who out of 10s of millions of users happen to have a heart issue at time of taking ephedra. Now, do we have their medical history and data documented in that study???????? Could it be possible that out of 10s of millions of people 6 could have had a pre-existing condition that was irritated with stimulants? If 7 people actively taking ephedra were diagnosed with cancer of 10s of millions of users would that be reason to declare ephedra as a carcinogen and unsafe? What if 8 broke their leg? Vertigo????

Unfortunately (actually fortunately) there is no substance on that Pubmed post, the do link to the full case but you have to be a subscriber to it.
Click to expand...
I have the full text. ;)

No mention was made of subjects using ephedrine HCL; it was all ephedra, and no specific doses were mentioned. The paper even admitted that they didn't "prove" anything. This guy is out of his mind.
 
Cgkone said:
Most people say the rats were pumped full of GW 30xs as much as a human would take
Click to expand...
Most people are wrong. I literally just did the math for you. What more do you need/want man?

Here's the info on HED conversion factors if you want to double check it:
Invalid Link Removed
 
Chados said:
If ephedra is dangerous ephedrine should be too right? It actually seems that ephedra is safer than ephedrine.

I can find countless of studies from the sites you give me. Not all are good, again you're arguing that it's safe. Now what's safe? That you won't die with low dosage? I dont believe it's safe and regardless of how much you post I can't imagine it being safe. I can believe it's safer than cocain.

Ephedrine is a potentially dangerous natural compound; as of 2004 the US Food and Drug Administration had received over 18,000 reports of adverse effects in people using it.[19].

You're doing the exact same thing as with cardarine, going back to the 90s
Click to expand...

Ephedra contains ephedrine, but as far as Ephedra goes there isnt enough human research to conclude if its dangerous or can I claim its as safe as ephedrine which has a massive medically documented human sample to it.

What does the 2004 US Food and Drug Admin back their claims with? What are these reports? How much were they using? Were they using products with other stimulants? Did they have pre-existing conditions? Were they using ephedrine products or random over the counter fat burners where at the time there were cocktails of different stimulants made with ephedra along with a heavy lack of quality control? etc......what were these "side effects" anyways?
 
Chados said:
Of course it can. Maybe it's safer than eating a lemon but the fact is that you have studies with few individuals having problems done with know a few individuals and countless reports of people having side effects.
Click to expand...

And what are they? Who are they? Tell me more about who these people are? How they took it? What they took? What side effects?
 
Cgkone said:
Most people say the rats were pumped full of GW 30xs as much as a human would take
Click to expand...
If you actually read through the review we're talking about, I'll share some interesting information on how researchers (tentatively) relate time/duration from rodents to humans so you can better understand how long a given rodent study is equivalent to in humans. It's far from an exact science, but it's interesting I suppose. But without first reading the review itself, this information is meaningless.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Most people are wrong. I literally just did the math for you. What more do you need/want man?

Here's the info on HED conversion factors if you want to double check it:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
I dont want anything bro. But do I think your post is the focking gavel and the law. No I don't. I think that its interesting. But I think GW causing cancer because it did in mice over long periods of time is debatable.
So if your not use to people questioning you....bro get use to it.
That's what this forum is for dog.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
If you actually read through the review we're talking about, I'll share some interesting information on how researchers (tentatively) relate time/duration from rodents to humans so you can better understand how long a given rodent study is equivalent to in humans. It's far from an exact science, but it's interesting I suppose. But without first reading the review itself, this information is meaningless.
Click to expand...
I'd appreciate that. Ill definitely read it. A couple times. But there is A lot of smart guys on this forum who question the rodent study. Its not an attack on you bro. Its just questions. I appreciate you breaking it down for me. Honestly, I do
 
Cgkone said:
I'd appreciate that. Ill definitely read it. A couple times. But there is A lot of smart guys on this forum who question the rodent study. Its not an attack on you bro. Its just questions. I appreciate you breaking it down for me. Honestly, I do
Click to expand...
Yeah man, no hard feelings. I'm sorry if I'm a bit agitated towards you, you haven't really done anything wrong. I'm mostly just taking out my frustration with some other people on you, unfairly. Also, it's worth noting that a lot of these "smart people" who are questioning the studies have skin in the game, and may even sell cardarine, which is a clear incentive to try to downplay any negatives or concerns. At the end of the day, the companies who developed the drug, GSK and Ligand, know more about it than you, me, or anyone here, and they decided that the risks outweighed the rewards. Also, if any "smart person" claims that the doses are very high, they clearly don't know what HED conversion is, and I'd therefore have to question how "smart" they are in respect to this topic. There are some concerns about the studies (being carcinogenic vs "only" potentiating other carcinogens, for example, or the genetic predispositions of the rodents used in the studies), but the dose is not one of these concerns. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong, and the math clearly shows this.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Yeah man, no hard feelings. I'm sorry if I'm a bit agitated towards you, you haven't really done anything wrong. I'm mostly just taking out my frustration with some other people on you, unfairly. Also, it's worth noting that a lot of these "smart people" who are questioning the studies have skin in the game, and may even sell cardarine, which is a clear incentive to try to downplay any negatives or concerns. At the end of the day, the companies who developed the drug, GSK and Ligand, know more about it than you, me, or anyone here, and they decided that the risks outweighed the rewards. Also, if any "smart person" claims that the doses are very high, they clearly don't know what HED conversion is, and I'd therefore have to question how "smart" they are in respect to this topic. There are some concerns about the studies (being carcinogenic vs "only" potentiating other carcinogens, for example, or the genetic predispositions of the rodents used in the studies), but the dose is not one of these concerns. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong, and the math clearly shows this.
Click to expand...
Yup.
Thanks again.
 
Invalid Link Removed

What about this then? I mean there are countless of people having problems with this.
 
ax1 said:
And what are they? Who are they? Tell me more about who these people are? How they took it? What they took? What side effects?
Click to expand...
It's six people who took an undisclosed amount of ephedra with an undisclosed (and likely entirely unknown) amount of ephedrine. That clearly outweighs multiple placebo-controlled, double-blind studies and a review of over a quarter million people.
 
Chados said:
Invalid Link Removed

What about this then? I mean there are countless of people having problems with this.
Click to expand...
For one, that deals with higher doses; anyone using higher than the needed/recommended dose is just a fool trying to win a Darwin Award. Second, a whole 60 adverse effects out of likely millions of people who have used it? And these most likely coming from people who, again, used too much.

Just read the **** studies I've repeatedly referenced. They discuss it in great detail...

I don't think you know what "countless" means...
 
Prescribed ephedrine/caffeine was not associated with a substantially increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in this study.
Click to expand...
This reviewed over 250,000 people.
Invalid Link Removed
This is in addition to multiple placebo-controlled, double-blind studies. But you clearly haven't read them, or don't understand them, so why bother?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
This reviewed over 250,000 people.
Invalid Link Removed
This is in addition to multiple placebo-controlled, double-blind studies. But you clearly haven't read them, or don't understand them, so why bother?
Click to expand...

18000 reported side effects 2004 in the us. This could basically mean most people will be fine if healthy and if taking a moderate dosage. That still makes the compound very questionable. If you take 2mg you could probably live your full life.

Invalid Link Removed New cardarine study. Well kinda new
 
Chados said:
18000 reported side effects 2004 in the us. This could basically mean most people will be fine if healthy and if taking a moderate dosage. That still makes the compound very questionable. If you take 2mg you could probably live your full life.

Invalid Link Removed New cardarine study. Well kinda new
Click to expand...
2mg? Do you even know what the PRESCRIBED DOSE is? Or that this is WITH a decent dose of caffeine? No one should use more than a prescribed/moderate dose; this dose is safe and VERY effective. You're arguing insanity. Take a break, come back tomorrow and actually read through the studies I've posted, please. Your arguments are addressed and disproved repeatedly in said studies. You just think you're in too deep to change your mind, but it's never too late to admit you are wrong and change your views to reflect the facts. Until that happens, I'm done here. Anyone with basic reading comprehension and critical thinking ability can read what I've said and referenced. I've made my points clear by now, and you've listened to none of them, so I'm done. Continue to believe your delusions if you want, but I won't be involving myself in them for now.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
2mg? Do you even know what the PRESCRIBED DOSE is? Or that this is WITH a decent dose of caffeine? No one should use more than a prescribed/moderate dose; this dose is safe and VERY effective. You're arguing insanity. Take a break, come back tomorrow and actually read through the studies I've posted, please. Your arguments are addressed and disproved repeatedly in said studies. You just think you're in too deep to change your mind, but it's never too late to admit you are wrong and change your views to reflect the facts. Until that happens, I'm done here. Anyone with basic reading comprehension and critical thinking ability can read what I've said and referenced. I've made my points clear by now, and you've listened to none of them, so I'm done. Continue to believe your delusions if you want, but I won't be involving myself in them for now.
Click to expand...

My god dude.. 2mg and you can probably live normally without any sides at all. That doesn't mean i claimed that to be the recommended dosage. If taking anything below what's normal it's probably safe got it? I just linked where you could read they recommend a 8mg not 20 because they had reports. There are studies showing contraction in the blood vessels just like cocain an other stimulants.

I don't think it's safe it's not me trying to win you over. Get over it
 
Chados said:
My god dude.. 2mg and you can probably live normally without any sides at all. That doesn't mean i claimed that to be the recommended dosage. If taking anything below what's normal it's probably safe got it? I just linked where you could read they recommend a 8mg not 20 because they had reports. There are studies showing contraction in the blood vessels just like cocain an other stimulants.

I don't think it's safe it's not be trying to win you over. Get over it
Click to expand...
I already said I'm done here man. Reading comprehension... Later.
 
Chados said:
My god dude.. 2mg and you can probably live normally without any sides at all. That doesn't mean i claimed that to be the recommended dosage. If taking anything below what's normal it's probably safe got it? I just linked where you could read they recommend a 8mg not 20 because they had reports. There are studies showing contraction in the blood vessels just like cocain an other stimulants.

I don't think it's safe it's not me trying to win you over. Get over it
Click to expand...

They recommend 8mg based of what scientific human study? Or is it like, some dude in Canada couldnt go to bed so take less, kinda like drink 1 can of beer instead of 3 and you lesson chance of toilet visit.
 
ax1 said:
They recommend 8mg based of what scientific human study? Or is it like, some dude in Canada couldnt go to bed so take less, kinda like drink 1 can of beer instead of 3 and you lesson chance of toilet visit.
Click to expand...
Dude, you're even more of a masochist than I am for continuing with this insanity.

8mg? Even 20mg isn't' a high dose.

Try 20mg 3x per day, with each dose being taken with 200mg caffeine, every day, for 24 weeks:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
 
Not my words, they suggested 8mg 2-3 times daily I didn't. Did they suggest it because they thought 20mg 3 times a day was harmless? It basically does what cocain does. You guys are still arguing about it being safe. If forgetting how much you've been taking can cause death it's not safe. It's not like forgetting wether you had 1 or 5 cups of coffee
 
Chados said:
Not my words, they suggested 8mg 2-3 times daily I didn't. Did they suggest it because they thought 20mg 3 times a day was harmless? It basically does what cocain does. You guys are still arguing about it being safe. If forgetting how much you've been taking can cause death it's not safe. It's not like forgetting wether you had 1 or 5 cups of coffee
Click to expand...

Thats a recommendation by "Health Canada" which is a load of government bureaucrats pushing reactionary policies with no scientific backing because their minion supporters think their are being kept safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top