GW 0742 and other "new" variations of SARMs

jtmartin18

jtmartin18

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
Has anybody tried or done research on the newer variations of SARMs? The ones that I'm interested in are:

GW 0742
SR 9011
LGD 2226

Also, does anybody have experience with injecting Cardarine? Are there any significant benefits over taking it orally? How is it dosed and how frequently?
 

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
I’ve tried injectable SR (logged it on here) and for nothing from it. However I set out all the reasons that might have been on my log to be fair.

I recall a few of us all having the same results around then though.....was the start of 2019 if I recall
 
jtmartin18

jtmartin18

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
I’ve tried injectable SR (logged it on here) and for nothing from it. However I set out all the reasons that might have been on my log to be fair.

I recall a few of us all having the same results around then though.....was the start of 2019 if I recall
Was that sr9009 or the 9011? I remember reading something about 9009 not having much bioavailability orally, and the best way to take it was transdermally every couple of hours, not very practical of a compound if I recall correctly.

Edit: Just realized you said injectable. I've tried oral 9009 and also did not see a thing from it.
 

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
Was that sr9009 or the 9011? I remember reading something about 9009 not having much bioavailability orally, and the best way to take it was transdermally every couple of hours, not very practical of a compound if I recall correctly.

Edit: Just realized you said injectable. I've tried oral 9009 and also did not see a thing from it.
yeah it was sr9009 (although if I recall right sr9011 was similar but more bioavailability italy wasn’t it?) - the injectable was supposed to solve the issues with oral but did nothing for me
 

bigdadybry

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
I am interested in learning about and hearing results from the newer LGD and GW versions too.
 
LGTWHIT

LGTWHIT

Member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
SR9009 oral has ZERO bioavailability but the td and oil are complete opposite. You’ll want to work out for days when you get good SR9009... similar to Cardarine but much more potent. 1 hr before workout is typically how I suggest taking it for a nice PWO kick in the pantalones. Have no clue on the OP’s question for newer sarms though
 
Renew1

Renew1

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
SR9009 oral has ZERO bioavailability but the td and oil are complete opposite. You’ll want to work out for days when you get good SR9009... similar to Cardarine but much more potent. 1 hr before workout is typically how I suggest taking it for a nice PWO kick in the pantalones. Have no clue on the OP’s question for newer sarms though

Wow.
I may try it based upon that review.
 
LGTWHIT

LGTWHIT

Member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
There’s not a ton of reviews or quality reviews out there as it’s not cheap, but I can speak from experience. Sr9009 and Mtren mixed in the same 1cc 29g 1/2” vial is nuts!!! And yes I’ve used both separately as well
 

jim2509

Active member
Awards
3
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
I can only add that having used Oral Sr9009 I noticed reduced anxiety and massive urge to train and when running....I just didnt get out of breath nowhere near as fast whilst at 90% of my Vo2 max (Garmin).
I actually rate it but would love to try the transdermal.
 

jim2509

Active member
Awards
3
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
All placebo, has no oral bioavailability bud
I dont think so as i ran it when Osta completley wrecked my Vo2 max and as soon as I added Sr9009 it sorted it and when I finished the Osta and carried on with the Sr9009 I actually increased my Vo2 max. Also I have heard different trains of thought about the whole oral bioavailability thing. So each to their own I guess.
 

bigdadybry

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
I dont think so as i ran it when Osta completley wrecked my Vo2 max and as soon as I added Sr9009 it sorted it and when I finished the Osta and carried on with the Sr9009 I actually increased my Vo2 max. Also I have heard different trains of thought about the whole oral bioavailability thing. So each to their own I guess.
Do you think any could be attributed to your body's rebound affect from being off Osta?
 

jim2509

Active member
Awards
3
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
Do you think any could be attributed to your body's rebound affect from being off Osta?
I dont think so as by 5 weeks in my Vo2 crashed down continually over weeks to 164 bpm on Osta...I added in Sr9009 week 6 and it started going up again and on finishing the Osta early by week 10 it was back to 184.
 

bigdadybry

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
I dont think so as by 5 weeks in my Vo2 crashed down continually over weeks to 164 bpm on Osta...I added in Sr9009 week 6 and it started going up again and on finishing the Osta early by week 10 it was back to 184.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
I misunderstood your original post. I thought you discontinued Osta, began SR9009, then saw the increased VO2 (off Osta, on SR9009).
 

jim2509

Active member
Awards
3
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
I misunderstood your original post. I thought you discontinued Osta, began SR9009, then saw the increased VO2 (off Osta, on SR9009).
Sorry I should of clarified at the start. Anyhow obviously I cant be sure the Sr9009 wasnt Cardarine mislabelled or something else as it seems sr9009 is hit or miss with people. I've heard the biovailabity arguement being 2% and 22% and then rumours the originator got shafted out of the patent and tried to torpedo it...lol!

Thing is you would of thought the likes of sr9009 and Cardarine would of been studied more....I know theres stuff out there about Cardarine in low doses showing anti cancer properties in humans and people have been using it for years so it's probably a safer bet although I'm unsure what the half life is for that or whether to split dose it or take it in one dose. I like the idea of 10mg one dose per day with Cardarine personally 1 hour before training.
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
I just want to play devils advocate here and mention that NONE of these drugs have been approved for use in humans and their mechanisms of actions are poorly understood. I think DS/SARM/PH companies are selling these because of the ban on the previous drugs.

These are all experimental, and in my mind, you'd be much safer using a regular AAS than trying to experiment with SARMs that we don't know could be potentially dangerous in the long run, have no effect at all, and have potential to cause completely unknown and undiscovered side effects.
 

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
I just want to play devils advocate here and mention that NONE of these drugs have been approved for use in humans and their mechanisms of actions are poorly understood. I think DS/SARM/PH companies are selling these because of the ban on the previous drugs.

These are all experimental, and in my mind, you'd be much safer using a regular AAS than trying to experiment with SARMs that we don't know could be potentially dangerous in the long run, have no effect at all, and have potential to cause completely unknown and undiscovered side effects.
i completely agree with this. Legality has zero to do with safety (alcohol is legal but kills thousands of people each year - can kill you in one night if you overdo it). Sarms will be banned eventually, the law just needs to catch up.

aas have been around years, are well studied (many have been or are used in clinical settings) and we know the side effects and how to deal with them.

GW is the only thing in the sarm grouping (not a sarm but always lumped in with them) I use now and that’s only for the impact on lipids which appears legit and even then I try to use it sparingly.
 
Renew1

Renew1

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
i completely agree with this. Legality has zero to do with safety (alcohol is legal but kills thousands of people each year - can kill you in one night if you overdo it). Sarms will be banned eventually, the law just needs to catch up.

aas have been around years, are well studied (many have been or are used in clinical settings) and we know the side effects and how to deal with them.

GW is the only thing in the sarm grouping (not a sarm but always lumped in with them) I use now and that’s only for the impact on lipids which appears legit and even then I try to use it sparingly.

^^ I could have written this. ^^
 
Dagron

Dagron

Member
Awards
0
I've used up to 0.5 ml of SR9009 and SR9011 from Behemoth with similar results; within 30 minutes there is a feeling of alertness and natural energy similar to the feeling of waking up from a great nap. I presume this has to do with the circadian disrupting effects. 0.4 ml was the sweet spot for me and the SR9011 seems to kick in harder fwiw. Same results in terms of assisting with overall body recomp
 
Last edited:

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
I've used up to 0.5 ml of SR9009 and SR9011 from Behemoth with similar results; within 30 minutes there is a feeling of alertness and natural energy similar to the feeling of waking up from a great nap. I presume this has to do with the circadian disrupting effects. 0.4 ml was the sweet spot for me and the SR9011 seems to kick in harder fwiw. Same results in terms of assisting with overall body recomp, I imagine this would pair well with DNP as it would help get you up for your training and further assist with mobilizing fat stores.
jesus bro, going from zero to 100 really fucking quickly there 😂. You can’t just causally throw out that sr ‘would pair well with DNP’ - your not suggesting a wine to go with cheese, there’s a lot of newbies read this stuff, whilst I don’t agree with the crazy stigma round DNP it’s a fact that getting the dosing wrong and your dead, and people have died. It’s something no one should ever mention casually imo (and tbh unless someone is seriously competing there is simply no need for it).

now in much smaller doses I agree it has therapeutic benefits (and I believe it’s being studied again for its neurological positive effects) but it’s a
serious compound......and at one time it was banned from being mentioned on here because of that.
 

bigdadybry

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
I'll play devil's advocate to the devil's advocate and refer to the lack of studies demonstrating marijuana's effectiveness and safety over almost the past century. :)
I'm not using that as a counter-argument in favor of SARMs etc., only stating not all that is safe and effective is proven through traditional means.
Further, there are various reasons why a product does not make it to market. One reason could be if you own a more profitable comparable drug, or its the treatment for a disease where you have market share of the treatment revenue. Not stating that is the case with some of the SARMs, I do not know who own the patents or who is in position to benefit. If we assume they never made it to market based on a negative study, we're not fully educated on the subject matter (me included). I'll take my tinfoil hat off now.
 
u_e_s_i

u_e_s_i

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I ordered the new GW today so we’ll see how it goes, I’ve taken the original many times. The original has always made leaning out easier for me and done wonders on lipids
Does the new GW have any advantages over the old one for someone who isn’t on AAS? In the limited reading material I’ve found, read and understood about it the only thing that really stood out is that it’s beneficial for cartilage and ligaments. Things like improved lipids profiles and improved carb shuttling don’t strike me as things that’d be all that useful for people who work out regularly, aren’t on AAS and aren’t obese

Have you heard anything about how carcinogenic it is relative to GW501516?
 
Last edited:
u_e_s_i

u_e_s_i

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
SR9009 oral has ZERO bioavailability but the td and oil are complete opposite. You’ll want to work out for days when you get good SR9009... similar to Cardarine but much more potent. 1 hr before workout is typically how I suggest taking it for a nice PWO kick in the pantalones. Have no clue on the OP’s question for newer sarms though
Did SR9009 just give you shittonnes of energy or does it also boost your endurance like cardarine does?
 
Last edited:
jtmartin18

jtmartin18

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
Does the new GW have any advantages over the old one for someone who isn’t on AAS? In the limited reading material I’ve found, read and understood about it the only thing that really stood out is that it’s beneficial for cartilage and ligaments. Things like improved lipids profiles and improved carb shuttling don’t strike me as things that’d be all that useful for people who work out regularly, aren’t on AAS and aren’t obese

Have you heard anything about how carcinogenic it is relative to GW501516?
From what I’ve read on it it’s supposedly stronger than GW501516 in all aspects? Honestly the info I could find was pretty limited and sounds like you were able to find a lot more than I was. I’m just gonna give it a shot myself

As for the carcinogenic part, I personally dont even believe that GW501516 is carcinogenic in humans. And I’ve already accepted the fact that if I get cancer it’s going to either be from a lifetime of using technology, pollution, or mouth cancer from dipping. I’m not worried about cancer from taking GW for a few months
 

bigdadybry

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
As far as studies, especially recent ones, showing carcinogenic activities in rats, there are rumblings the newer batch of bred rats for study have been bred for longer telomeres, meaning they are better at regeneration but acquire cancer easier if I understood it correctly. Don't let this lead anyone one way or another. Still educate yourself and take everything you read with a grain of salt and a suspicious mind.
 
Renew1

Renew1

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
As far as studies, especially recent ones, showing carcinogenic activities in rats, there are rumblings the newer batch of bred rats for study have been bred for longer telomeres, meaning they are better at regeneration but acquire cancer easier if I understood it correctly. Don't let this lead anyone one way or another. Still educate yourself and take everything you read with a grain of salt and a suspicious mind.

It would be foolish not to consider data presented by a company trying to develop a product to sell to the public, that shows it to be pro-cancer in rats.
What would be their motivation for doing this? To waste a ton of money, and send a potentially HUGE money-maker straight to the trash heap??
Doubtful.

Take it if you like.
Take it in excess if you'd like.
But there's a reason that there aren't many guys on this huge board, littered with pretty knowledgeable guys, who just say, " Heck yeah, take Cardarine, don't worry about it".

You won't see many guys on this board (whether they take Cardarine or not) who have that attitude.

We tend to be pretty protective of each other's well-being.
And one thing is certain:
Given what has been presented, Cardarine has the POTENTIAL of possibly being a carcinogenic compound.
 
u_e_s_i

u_e_s_i

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
From what I’ve read on it it’s supposedly stronger than GW501516 in all aspects? Honestly the info I could find was pretty limited and sounds like you were able to find a lot more than I was. I’m just gonna give it a shot myself
yeh that is the big issue with research chemicals

As for the carcinogenic part, I personally dont even believe that GW501516 is carcinogenic in humans. And I’ve already accepted the fact that if I get cancer it’s going to either be from a lifetime of using technology, pollution, or mouth cancer from dipping. I’m not worried about cancer from taking GW for a few months
It’s fair enough if you accept the risks involved but tbh dude I really wouldn’t reject the possibility that it causes cancer in humans. There haven’t been any notable cases or any studies done on its effects in humans but taken daily at the equivalent of what’d be ~40mg for the average adult human male the ****’s a death sentence for rats
 
Dagron

Dagron

Member
Awards
0
The cancer studies were when the compound was paired with another carcinogen. For that reason I wouldn't use cardarine with oral steroids or similarly toxic compounds, but if used by itself it *should* be safe.

That said, injectable SR9009 is going to accomplish a similar feat without the risk so if a user is worried about the potential for side effects I would simply go that route instead.
 
u_e_s_i

u_e_s_i

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
The cancer studies were when the compound was paired with another carcinogen. For that reason I wouldn't use cardarine with oral steroids or similarly toxic compounds, but if used by itself it *should* be safe.

That said, injectable SR9009 is going to accomplish a similar feat without the risk so if a user is worried about the potential for side effects I would simply go that route instead.
Have you tried SR9011? If so, what would you say the differences are and are they suppressive?
 

jim2509

Active member
Awards
3
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
yeh that is the big issue with research chemicals


It’s fair enough if you accept the risks involved but tbh dude I really wouldn’t reject the possibility that it causes cancer in humans. There haven’t been any notable cases or any studies done on its effects in humans but taken daily at the equivalent of what’d be ~40mg for the average adult human male the ****’s a death sentence for rats
I've read about the Australian study in humans in 2008 which was presented to a medical forum and showed it REDUCED colon cancer and 'allegedly' had anti cancer properties. I also recall reading the WADA/GSK press release. Basically WADA wanted to deter athletes from taking it and asked GSK to put out a statement. WADA brought up the cancer link, BUT GSK didn't put that in their statement 'that is causes cancer in humans' they merely said it was withdrawn from trials and they recommend it shouldn't be used. Make of that what you will? As above perhaps it's better not run with other products, but as standalone.

It's a shame you cant get transdermal Sr9009.
 
Last edited:
u_e_s_i

u_e_s_i

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I've read about the Australian study in humans in 2008 which was presented to a medical forum and showed it REDUCED colon cancer and 'allegedly' had anti cancer properties. I also recall reading the WADA/GSK press release. Basically WADA wanted to deter athletes from taking it and asked GSK to put out a statement. WADA brought up the cancer link, BUT GSK didn't put that in their statement 'that is causes cancer in humans' they merely said it was withdrawn from trials and they recommend it shouldn't be used. Make of that what you will? As above perhaps it's better not run with other products, but as standalone.

It's a shame you cant get transdermal Sr9009.
I can’t remember where the study I read was from but that sounds like a different one. In the study I read rats were given cardarine at three doses, two of which were monstrous and the other was the equivalent to 40mg for the average adult human male. They were given cardarine every day and all the subjects who were given cardarine developed cancer.

I mean personally I take 20mg on workout days (which is usually 4 days a week) because as some have pointed out it does feel weird that none of us have heard any stories about some guy who knows a guy who’s brother’s friend got cancer whilst taking cardarine. That said, I’m still particularly wary of going over my usual regimen (which I feel is fairly light) with cardarine because of the potential risks
 

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
It would be foolish not to consider data presented by a company trying to develop a product to sell to the public, that shows it to be pro-cancer in rats.
What would be their motivation for doing this? To waste a ton of money, and send a potentially HUGE money-maker straight to the trash heap??
Doubtful.

Take it if you like.
Take it in excess if you'd like.
But there's a reason that there aren't many guys on this huge board, littered with pretty knowledgeable guys, who just say, " Heck yeah, take Cardarine, don't worry about it".

You won't see many guys on this board (whether they take Cardarine or not) who have that attitude.

We tend to be pretty protective of each other's well-being.
And one thing is certain:
Given what has been presented, Cardarine has the POTENTIAL of possibly being a carcinogenic compound.
all of this.

regards the study showing anti cancer properties I believe that was in vitro?

but regardless, no one should just ignore the possibility there is a possible risk there. That’s why whenever I talk about it I suggest people look into the studies and make their own mind up on the risk. It’s why I use it at no more than 20mg a day and no more than a couple of times a year (if that). I’ve personally made my peace with my decision and it’s on me, no one else, if it ever does cause me issues down the line.
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
When you look at a drug like Cardinine I have no idea why anyone would choose to use it. The freaking pharmaceutical company who was developing it cut off research after it started a high rate of cancer in their lab rats. If this company is going to take what probably amounted to a multimillion dollar drug investigation and got to that phase of the research, that has to tell you something.

GW501516 (also known as GW-501,516, GW1516, GSK-516, Cardarine, and on the black market as Endurobol[1]) is a PPARδ receptor agonist that was invented in a collaboration between Ligand Pharmaceuticals and GlaxoSmithKline in the 1990s, was entered into clinical development as a drug candidate for metabolic diseases and cardiovascular diseases, and was abandoned in 2007 because animal testing showed that the drug caused cancer to develop rapidly in several organs.

...

By 2007, GW501516 had completed two phase II clinical studies and other studies relating to obesity, diabetes, dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease,[10][11] but GSK abandoned further development of the drug in 2007 for reasons which were not disclosed at the time.[12] It later emerged that the drug was discontinued because animal testing showed that the drug caused cancer to develop rapidly in several organs, at dosages of 3 mg/kg/day in both mice and rats.[2][13][14]

Studies:



Geiger LE, Dunsford WS, Lewis DJ, Brennan C, Liu KC, Newsholme SJ (2009). PS 895 - Rat carcinogenicity study with GW501516, a PPAR delta agonist (PDF).


Newsholme SJ, Dunsford WS, Brodie T, Brennan C, Brown M, Geiger LE (2009). PS 896 - Mouse carcinogenicity study with GW501516, a PPAR delta agonist (PDF)
 
u_e_s_i

u_e_s_i

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
The freaking pharmaceutical company who was developing it cut off research after it started a high rate of cancer in their lab rats. If this company is going to take what probably amounted to a multimillion dollar drug investigation and got to that phase of the research, that has to tell you something.
As a whole I agree but it’s worth keeping in mind what happened to Monsanto/Bayer because of roundup
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
As a whole I agree but it’s worth keeping in mind what happened to Monsanto/Bayer because of roundup
You kind of picked the black-or-white logical fallacy and I see this a lot. The argument that is made is well "X" kills us anyway, so why worry about "Y" is a common one. For example, "we could get hit by a bus tomorrow" so let's use risque products since that's a potential that can happen anyway.

That's really a fallacy based on the idea that everything in the world is out to kill us, so why bother mitigating the risk factors?
 
u_e_s_i

u_e_s_i

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
You kind of picked the black-or-white logical fallacy and I see this a lot. The argument that is made is well "X" kills us anyway, so why worry about "Y" is a common one. For example, "we could get hit by a bus tomorrow" so let's use risque products since that's a potential that can happen anyway.

That's really a fallacy based on the idea that everything in the world is out to kill us, so why bother mitigating the risk factors?
I’m not saying that at all. Like I said I’m well aware of and appreciate the risks involved which is why I take precautions and am on the lookout for a replacement

I’m wasn’t arguing with you about whether or not your view is valid. As a few of us have said just in this thread, we’re well aware of the risks and so your stance is reasonable. Each to their own
 

bigdadybry

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
It would be foolish not to consider data presented by a company trying to develop a product to sell to the public, that shows it to be pro-cancer in rats.
What would be their motivation for doing this? To waste a ton of money, and send a potentially HUGE money-maker straight to the trash heap??
Doubtful.

Take it if you like.
Take it in excess if you'd like.
But there's a reason that there aren't many guys on this huge board, littered with pretty knowledgeable guys, who just say, " Heck yeah, take Cardarine, don't worry about it".

You won't see many guys on this board (whether they take Cardarine or not) who have that attitude.

We tend to be pretty protective of each other's well-being.
And one thing is certain:
Given what has been presented, Cardarine has the POTENTIAL of possibly being a carcinogenic compound.
My post was not for or against. It is pointing out that one needs to fully educate themselves. The devil is in the details.

For example, in the study "Rat Carcinogenity..." linked by StarScream, the opening sentence says "GW501516, a non-genotoxic PPARδ agonist, was assessed for carcinogenic potential by daily administration (oral gavage) to Han Wistar rats for a period of 104 weeks. Males were given 0, 5, 15 or 30 mg/kg/day for the first 6 weeks of the study. For the remainder of the study males were given 0, 5, 20 or 40 mg/kg/day"

I care about other users on this board, so much so I do not want people rely on the title of a study alone to come to a conclusion.

For reference, 104 weeks is almost 2 consecutive years at a dosage that ranged from 450 mg/day to 3600 mg/day for a 200 lb adult male. That is a minimum of 10x the dosage humans on this forum normally take, for almost 9x the length of time (assuming a 12 week cycle).

I would take the exact same "educate yourself" stance if the alternate were true (Article title of "Cardarine does not cause cancer" and the details stated "rats were studied for 104 minutes, using 0.5 nanograms/kg/day"). If that were the study, I'd say "104 minutes is a short period of time for cancer detection and the dosage is lower than what people propose taking at 0.00045 to 0.0036 mg for a 200 lb male".

Additional truth-in-posting and full transparency:
The particular rats used are known for maintaining a lower body weight and size, which saves on study costs.
They are known to be less prone to cancer.
 
Renew1

Renew1

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
My post was not for or against. It is pointing out that one needs to fully educate themselves. The devil is in the details.

For example, in the study "Rat Carcinogenity..." linked by StarScream, the opening sentence says "GW501516, a non-genotoxic PPARδ agonist, was assessed for carcinogenic potential by daily administration (oral gavage) to Han Wistar rats for a period of 104 weeks. Males were given 0, 5, 15 or 30 mg/kg/day for the first 6 weeks of the study. For the remainder of the study males were given 0, 5, 20 or 40 mg/kg/day"

I care about other users on this board, so much so I do not want people rely on the title of a study alone to come to a conclusion.

For reference, 104 weeks is almost 2 consecutive years at a dosage that ranged from 450 mg/day to 3600 mg/day for a 200 lb adult male. That is a minimum of 10x the dosage humans on this forum normally take, for almost 9x the length of time (assuming a 12 week cycle).

I would take the exact same "educate yourself" stance if the alternate were true (Article title of "Cardarine does not cause cancer" and the details stated "rats were studied for 104 minutes, using 0.5 nanograms/kg/day"). If that were the study, I'd say "104 minutes is a short period of time for cancer detection and the dosage is lower than what people propose taking at 0.00045 to 0.0036 mg for a 200 lb male".

Additional truth-in-posting and full transparency:
The particular rats used are known for maintaining a lower body weight and size, which saves on study costs.
They are known to be less prone to cancer.
When guys ask me about Var, one of the things that I Don't tell them is ... "And make sure you research the possible Cancer risks of this compound".
Because there wasn't a study done on it which suggested a link to Cancer from it's use (after which the potentially VERY lucrative Var was pulled from market consideration).

The same with Testosterone, and almost any other compound that comes to mind.

.... With the notable exception of Cardarine.
And that is why, when guys ask me about it in private conversations, I'll always tell them everything I believe to be relevant about the compound, Including a word of caution to look into the possible link to Cancer.

The same when it goes full circle (yet again), and a new batch of guys decide to persuade others that the possible Cancer links are nonsense, and the warnings should be ignored.
I'll be there EVERY TIME.

Because, best case scenario ... They were right, and the warnings were misguided.

... And Worse Case Scenario...
They persuaded the guys the warnings were misguided, BUT THEY WEREN'T.
 

bigdadybry

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
When guys ask me about Var, one of the things that I Don't tell them is ... "And make sure you research the possible Cancer risks of this compound".
Because there wasn't a study done on it which suggested a link to Cancer from it's use (after which the potentially VERY lucrative Var was pulled from market consideration).

The same with Testosterone, and almost any other compound that comes to mind.

.... With the notable exception of Cardarine.
And that is why, when guys ask me about it in private conversations, I'll always tell them everything I believe to be relevant about the compound, Including a word of caution to look into the possible link to Cancer.

The same when it goes full circle (yet again), and a new batch of guys decide to persuade others that the possible Cancer links are nonsense, and the warnings should be ignored.
I'll be there EVERY TIME.

Because, best case scenario ... They were right, and the warnings were misguided.

... And Worse Case Scenario...
They persuaded the guys the warnings were misguided, BUT THEY WEREN'T.
True, it is better to state the risk than not. Remember, I am only advocating for people to educate themselves, I am not stating they should ignore the risks nor am I advocating the use. We agree on that. I have not or did not debate that or state otherwise. We agree on wanting people educated, we just do it differently.

As far as your comparison to Var: Comparing studies that were (not) done on a drug introduced over 50 years ago that went quickly to market vs a recent one under consideration is an apples to oranges comparison.

Var was identified in 1962 and introduced to the market in 1964. Most of the evidence of its safety came from usage on humans. Find the research before '64 where researchers subjected rats to 10x the human dosage for 9x as long. If they did, who knows if it would have come to market. Times were different then, research was different then. Again, apples to oranges to compare drugs introduced under different conditions by comparing studies that were performed prior to introduction.

What we know is: A study showed a cancer risk for Cardarine in rats at 10x the equivalent human dosage administered over an interval 9x as long as humans normally use it.
 
Renew1

Renew1

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
True, it is better to state the risk than not. Remember, I am only advocating for people to educate themselves, I am not stating they should ignore the risks nor am I advocating the use. We agree on that. I have not or did not debate that or state otherwise. We agree on wanting people educated, we just do it differently.

As far as your comparison to Var: Comparing studies that were (not) done on a drug introduced over 50 years ago that went quickly to market vs a recent one under consideration is an apples to oranges comparison.

Var was identified in 1962 and introduced to the market in 1964. Most of the evidence of its safety came from usage on humans. Find the research before '64 where researchers subjected rats to 10x the human dosage for 9x as long. If they did, who knows if it would have come to market. Times were different then, research was different then. Again, apples to oranges to compare drugs introduced under different conditions by comparing studies that were performed prior to introduction.

What we know is: A study showed a cancer risk for Cardarine in rats at 10x the equivalent human dosage administered over an interval 9x as long as humans normally use it.

I appreciate you trying to educate me on my favorite compound, but I'm good there. Really.

The comparison that I made, in the way I made it, applied perfectly to the situation.

Good night.
 
Renew1

Renew1

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Dude .... What we KNOW is that is the way that rat studies are conducted.
Well, at least 50% of us that were in this conversation know that.
Geez.
Good night.
 

jim2509

Active member
Awards
3
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
Don't know if this helps:

Phase 4 trial (Clinical trials id NCT00841217)
This was a double-blind randomised crossover trial of 6 week intervention periods to determine whether PPAR-delta agonists (GW5015156) had favorable effects on lipoprotein metabolism (2.5 mg/day).

This clinical trial was conducted in Australia (April 2003 to December 2008). The authors concluded that GW501516 increased the hepatic removal of VLDL particles, which might have resulted from decreased apoC-III concentration. GW501516 increased apoA-II production, resulting in an increased concentration of LpA-I: A-II particles. This study elucidates the mechanism of action of this PPARδ agonist on lipoprotein metabolism and supports its potential use in treating dyslipidemia in obesity. All these results were achieved without any significant alteration in body weight or insulin resistance. No adverse events were observed [6]

Eric J. Olson et al., (2012) [7]
Cardarine (GW501516) (2.5, 5.0, or 10.0 mg) or placebo was given for 12 weeks to patients (n=268) with high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol <1.16 mmol/L. Fasting lipids/apolipoproteins (apos), insulin, glucose, and free fatty acid were measured; changes from baseline were calculated and assessed. A second smaller exploratory study (n=37) in a similar population was conducted using a sequence of 5 and 10 mg dosing for the assessment of lipoprotein particle concentration. GW501516 produced significant changes in HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apoA1, and apoB. Fewer very LDL and larger LDL support a transition toward less atherogenic lipoprotein profiles. The doses used were found to be safe with regard to safety outcomes assessed.

Dennis L. Sprecher et al., (2007)
[8] Healthy volunteers were allocated placebo (n=6) or PPARδ agonist (GW501516) at 2.5 mg (n=9) or 10 mg (n=9), orally, once-daily for 2 weeks while hospitalised and sedentary. Standard lipid/lipoproteins were measured and in vivo fat feeding studies were conducted. Human skeletal muscle cells were treated with GW501516 in vivo and evaluated for lipid-related gene expression and fatty acid oxidation (FAO). Serum TG trended downwards (P=0.08, 10 mg), whereas TG clearance post fat-feeding improved with drug (P=0.02). HDLc was enhanced in both treatment groups (2.5 mg P=0.004, 10 mg P<0.001) when compared with the decrease in the placebo group (−11.5±1.6%, P=0.002). These findings complimented in vivo cell culture results whereby GW501516 induced FAO and upregulated CPT1 and CD36 expression. No adverse events were identified.

Elizabeth E. Girroir et al., (2007) [13]
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.
 

Similar threads


Top