Why Did Cardarine Cause Cancer in Rats, But Not in Humans?

Cgkone said:
Interested in the prevention of cancer
Click to expand...
If you're a gambling man, then go for it, but it's a BIG gamble to use cardarine for the explicit purpose of preventing cancer, especially since that likely necessitates long-term use, which is a HUGE unknown, and where the issues in rats popped up.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
If you're a gambling man, then go for it, but it's a BIG gamble to use cardarine for the explicit purpose of preventing cancer, especially since that likely necessitates long-term use, which is a HUGE unknown, and where the issues in rats popped up.
Click to expand...
I was hoping mike Arnold would talk more about prevention.
We all know you 100% discredit any idea of cancer prevention.
Im hoping Arnold will explain the prevention part to me
 
Cgkone said:
I was hoping mike Arnold would talk more about prevention.
We all know you 100% discredit any idea of cancer prevention.
Im hoping Arnold will explain the prevention part to me
Click to expand...
I don’t “100% discredit any IDEA” of it, I discredit any APPLICATION of the idea, as that’s a huge gamble to take with such a serious issue. If you’re using a drug to prevent cancer, you want the question to be “does this prevent cancer or does it not (work),” not “does this prevent cancer or does it worsen it?” You know what I mean?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I don’t “100% discredit any IDEA” of it, I discredit any APPLICATION of the idea, as that’s a huge gamble to take with such a serious issue. If you’re using a drug to prevent cancer, you want the question to be “does this prevent cancer or does it not (work),” not “does this prevent cancer or does it worsen it?” You know what I mean?
Click to expand...
Nobody has suggested using GW to prevent cancer.
They are saying it more likely prevents than causes. Right?
Do you agree with that?
 
At least I have not seen it being used as a cancer prevention.
I guess there are studies that suggest it may. Correct?
 
Cgkone said:
Nobody has suggested using GW to prevent cancer.
They are saying it more likely prevents than causes. Right?
Do you agree with that?
Click to expand...
Ok. I thought you meant you were interested in using it in an attempt to prevent cancer, which would be silly. I say we simply don’t know either way, and with such a big unknown for such a big issue, I’d stay away from it. This is especially true for people who would be using it WITH AAS and other things like that, as the biggest issue in rodents wasn’t so much CAUSING cancer as increasing the growth rate of cancer that may have been caused by other carcinogens or occurred in the rodents regardless. It’s uncharted waters, and risky, to use it with AAS, not to mention that people are using 2-2.5x more than the highest human study ever did.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Ok. I thought you meant you were interested in using it in an attempt to prevent cancer, which would be silly. I say we simply don’t know either way, and with such a big unknown for such a big issue, I’d stay away from it. This is especially true for people who would be using it WITH AAS and other things like that, as the biggest issue in rodents wasn’t so much CAUSING cancer as increasing the growth rate of cancer that may have been caused by other carcinogens or occurred in the rodents regardless. It’s uncharted waters, and risky, to use it with AAS, not to mention that people are using 2-2.5x more than the highest human study ever did.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. But Arnold seems to have some kind of info that says it may prevent in humans. Chados mentioned this also.
 
Cgkone said:
That makes sense. But Arnold seems to have some kind of info that says it may prevent in humans. Chados mentioned this also.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the in vitro (human cell studies) show promise here, but these studies have limitations, and may not pan out to a whole organism (an actual person). The authors of the studies explicitly state this. It does seem to warrant further research, but the developers have already moved on, so I don’t see that happening. It’s just a huge unknown/gamble/risk/etc.
 
Cgkone said:
So all the human studies have been in vitro?
Click to expand...
No. All the human studies dealing with cancer have been in vitro. There are several studies in humans using oral dosing, up to 10mg/day for 12 weeks. These studies didn’t have anything to do with cancer, and of course running 10mg for a few months isn’t going to cause cancer; it’d be INSANELY carcinogenic if that was the case. We just don’t know about longer term use (which one can argue repeated 4-week cycles can be), or even doses of 20-25mg that people like to use.

Have you read through the TGA research compilation I posted? It discuses all the research.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
No. All the human studies dealing with cancer have been in vitro. There are several studies in humans using oral dosing, up to 10mg/day for 12 weeks. These studies didn’t have anything to do with cancer, and of course running 10mg for a few months isn’t going to cause cancer; it’d be INSANELY carcinogenic if that was the case. We just don’t know about longer term use (which one can argue repeated 4-week cycles can be), or even doses of 20-25mg that people like to use.

Have you read through the TGA research compilation I posted? It discuses all the research.
Click to expand...
Gotcha.
Clears it up.
I've read what you posted but sometimes I need it broken down.
Thanks!!
 
Cgkone said:
That makes sense. But Arnold seems to have some kind of info that says it may prevent in humans. Chados mentioned this also.
Click to expand...



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.
 
Chados said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
Cgkone said:
Interesting.
Click to expand...

Yup. Again even with long term use, if one plans on using steroids for life and takes cardarine just for the cholesterol and if cardarine would increase growth of a tumour I'm pretty sure statistically youd be in far higher risk of cardio vascular problems not taking cardarine than get cancer or faster tumour growth while taking it. In other words the benefits outweighs the possible side effects almost positively from what we've seen during the years.

Who knows though? Maybe theres more to it.
 
Chados said:
Yup. Again even with long term use, if one plans on using steroids for life and takes cardarine just for the cholesterol and if cardarine would increase growth of a tumour I'm pretty sure statistically youd be in far higher risk of cardio vascular problems not taking cardarine than get cancer or faster tumour growth while taking it. In other words the benefits outweighs the possible side effects almost positively from what we've seen during the years.

Who knows though? Maybe theres more to it.
Click to expand...
There are a plethora of significant assumptions in this reasoning. This is a HUGE unknown: running cardarine long-term is UNKNOWN, running it higher than 10mg is UNKNOWN, and taking it with AAS is another huge UNKNOWN. That’s at least three major unknowns right off the bat. Are you a gambling man?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
There are a plethora of significant assumptions in this reasoning. This is a HUGE unknown: running cardarine long-term is UNKNOWN, running it higher than 10mg is UNKNOWN, and taking it with AAS is another huge UNKNOWN. That’s at least three major unknowns right off the bat. Are you a gambling man?
Click to expand...

For cholesterol it's not unknown, its fantastic. It's been around a long time and I'm sure people have used it way beyond what I would. You don't have to run it two years if a cycle is 12 weeks
 
Why does everyone participating in this continue? Number one is there's no guaranteed answer and two is there was just a recent massive thread with the same posts repeated over and over again...just like this thread.
 
rgurleyjr said:
Why does everyone participating in this continue? Number one is there's no guaranteed answer and two is there was just a recent massive thread with the same posts repeated over and over again...just like this thread.
Click to expand...
I learned something today from this thread.......so that's the poi t of threads. Sharing of info.
 
Chados said:
For cholesterol it's not unknown, its fantastic. It's been around a long time and I'm sure people have used it way beyond what I would. You don't have to run it two years if a cycle is 12 weeks
Click to expand...
I don't mean the effects on cholesterol are unknown; don't be disingenuous. I mean that the effects of using more than 10mg is an unknown, as is combining it with AAS. Furthermore, we know what A SINGLE (ONE) 12 week "cycle" for 12 weeks does; we DO NOT KNOW what a 20mg/day cycle does, or what combining it with AAS does. We also don't know what happens if you run multiple cycles of it a year. Of course, running a few 12-week cycles a year is "better" than running it indefinitely for a year, but we still can't really say that the effects (if there are any) on cancer growth/development from running it multiple times in cycles not exceeding 12 weeks is the same as running it only one time ever.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I don't mean the effects on cholesterol are unknown; don't be disingenuous. I mean that the effects of using more than 10mg is an unknown, as is combining it with AAS. Furthermore, we know what A SINGLE (ONE) 12 week "cycle" for 12 weeks does; we DO NOT KNOW what a 20mg/day cycle does, or what combining it with AAS does. We also don't know what happens if you run multiple cycles of it a year. Of course, running a few 12-week cycles a year is "better" than running it indefinitely for a year, but we still can't really say that the effects (if there are any) on cancer growth/development from running it multiple times in cycles not exceeding 12 weeks is the same as running it only one time ever.
Click to expand...

No but we do know that cholesterol is affected greatly by steroids and that cardarine is extremly effective to control that. Since there are no studies saying it gives cancer but only perhaps will speed up tumour growth one would have to get cancer first. Getting cardio vascular disease is way more likely but that doesnt mean one should take steroids or cardarine for that matter if you in any way are risking your life.
 
user567 said:
They never setup a human trial so you dont know that it doesnt.
Click to expand...

I believe it actually made it to phase II trials in humans before it got abandoned due to that particular rat study. But those human trials were at normal doses, I think 2.5, 5, and 10mg total.. not 10mg/kg body weight like the study that produced rampant cancer in rats.
 
Vermonster said:
I believe it actually made it to phase II trials in humans before it got abandoned due to that particular rat study. But those human trials were at normal doses, I think 2.5, 5, and 10mg total.. not 10mg/kg body weight like the study that produced rampant cancer in rats.
Click to expand...

Why bump a dead thread as your very first post? Pretty sure what you even said was posted multiple times.
 
honest answer... I'm usually more of a lurker on here than anything but I have an hour left at work and responding to this was more appealing than another hour of documentation. :dunno:
 
Vermonster said:
honest answer... I'm usually more of a lurker on here than anything but I have an hour left at work and responding to this was more appealing than another hour of documentation. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'll unsubscribe from this thread...cardarine has been discussed so much lately ad nausem. Truth is no one really knows the long term effects on humans. And this is coming from someone who likes it.
 
rgurleyjr said:
Fair enough. I'll unsubscribe from this thread...cardarine has been discussed so much lately ad nausem. Truth is no one really knows the long term effects on humans. And this is coming from someone who likes it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I've been looking into it for a while and can see that it's been beaten to death. But you're right about that, its been around for a while but not long enough to draw any long term conclusions on. And even so the only people we can draw those conclusions from are those who report to use it personally so that's anecdotal at best given the potential variables there. Looks promising though...
 
Yeah I've been looking into it for a while and can see that it's been beaten to death. But you're right about that, its been around for a while but not long enough to draw any long term conclusions on. And even so the only people we can draw those conclusions from are those who report to use it personally so that's anecdotal at best given the potential variables there. Looks promising though...
 
Vermonster said:
I believe it actually made it to phase II trials in humans before it got abandoned due to that particular rat study. But those human trials were at normal doses, I think 2.5, 5, and 10mg total.. not 10mg/kg body weight like the study that produced rampant cancer in rats.
Click to expand...
There were other (lower doses) in multiple rodent studies that were deemed causes for concern, including 3 and 5 mg/kg. If you remember HED conversion, as 10mg/kg for rats isn't the same as 10mg/kg for humans, you get 33.6-56mg for a 70kg human, which isn't really that much more than the 20-25mg that lots of people use, but you're right that the human studies didn't dose higher than 10mg/day.

Of course, we really don't know what higher doses than 10mg will do for people, or what anything more than one short cycle (as the studies did) will do, so you'll have to determine risk vs reward yourself. But my point was just that 10mg/kg in rats isn't some astronomically high dose (and lower doses were used) when you account for the FDA's recommended factor of safety of 10 when going from the safe dose in rodent studies to beginning human studies. Given that 10mg/kg in rats is ~112mg for a person, 1/10 that (a factor of safety of 10) would only be 11.2mg, and even that would be too high of a dose to start with, as that dose wasn't found to be "safe" in the rodent studies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top