GW-501516 anerobic work

[muscleupcrohn]

Why do you insist a human only weighs 70kg and not 90kg?

Does it really matter? So 33.6mg turns into 43.2mg, which is still insanely close to the 25mg that people use. No human study has ever used more than 10mg/day, and that was one short term "cycle."

Actually, it seems more likely that much as is the case for saccharine and some other proven rodent carcinogens, this compound's effects translate to human usage (as we all know, having used it) yet its carcinogenic properties are what do not translate. In the years now that this has been around (10since I heard of it) we have not had any cause for alarm in actual real world usage.

How the hell do you know that the carcinogenic properties don't translate? You may want to tell GSK and Ligand that, as they seem to disagree with you. You can save them a ton of money if you can prove their drug is safe. Also, cancer is typically a long-term thing. People have been using it for a few years, if it caused cancer in a year or two in humans it'd be an INSANELY potent carcinogen. People smoke a pack a day for years/decades and may not get cancer for many years more, does that mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer?

Your lack of basic understanding of science is astounding.

 

[Old Witch]

Insanely close or almost double the dose... Depends on your perception I suppose.

 

[Old Witch]

Does it really matter? So 33.6mg turns into 43.2mg, which is still insanely close to the 25mg that people use. No human study has ever used more than 10mg/day, and that was one short term "cycle."

How the hell do you know that the carcinogenic properties don't translate? You may want to tell GSK and Ligand that, as they seem to disagree with you. You can save them a ton of money if you can prove their drug is safe. Also, cancer is typically a long-term thing. People have been using it for a few years, if it caused cancer in a year or two in humans it'd be an INSANELY potent carcinogen. People smoke a pack a day for years/decades and may not get cancer for many years more, does that mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer?

Your lack of basic understanding of science is astounding.

Considering the time frames in which these rats developed carcinoma, we should see athletes dying of tumors left and right by now.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Insanely close or almost double the dose... Depends on your perception I suppose.

Double the dose of what is not a proven safe dose? It's 2.5-5x the highest dose a human study has ever used. If by "depends on your perception" you mean if you have any basic understanding of how dose conversions and safety studies work, then yeah, it depends on your perception...

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Considering the time frames in which these rats developed carcinoma, we should see athletes dying of tumors left and right by now.

Wrong again. Furthermore, many athletes who opt to use cardarine likely also use other potentially carcinogenic drugs/compounds. How can one even find the blame to be on cardarine? We likely won't have any meaningful data on it for decades, if we ever do, as the best we can likely hope to have is observational studies from people who are using it illicitly. Someone who gets cancer and used cardarine may never even think about the connection, especially if it's years later and/or they used other potential carcinogens. Your science is bad...

 

[Old Witch]

You're right, I drank TAB once, I might get cancer from it in 30 years.

I think YOUR lack of understanding is ridiculous and I am not going to give it any more of my time.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

You're right, I drank TAB once, I might get cancer from it in 30 years.

I think YOUR lack of understanding is ridiculous and I am not going to give it any more of my time.

So you clearly know more than GSK and Ligand? The pharmaceutical companies who developed the drug and abandoned it? They deemed the potential risk to be too high, but clearly YOU, random internet person, know better than them, and can conclusively say that it is not a carcinogen in humans. Please, go away.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

You’re saying there’s nothing wrong or risky about using 2.5x the highest dose ever studied in humans, when the drug was abandoned by both pharmaceutical companies who developed it. And I’m the one who doesn’t understand?

 

[Old Witch]

You’re saying there’s nothing wrong or risky about using 2.5x the highest dose ever studied in humans, when the drug was abandoned by both pharmaceutical companies who developed it. And I’m the one who doesn’t understand?

When that dose is only as much for legal purposes, and abandonment is not necessarily entirely true, and the only reason such abandonment occurred was quite obviously the result of a legal hurdle rather than actual danger, then yes. I think I understand perfectly. You are base, alarmist, and wrong.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

When that dose is only as much for legal purposes, and abandonment is not necessarily entirely true, and the only reason such abandonment occurred was quite obviously the result of a legal hurdle rather than actual danger, then yes. I think I understand perfectly. You are base, alarmist, and wrong.

What? Legal purposes? It was found to be effective for its intended purposes at 5-10mg. If they could conclude that it was also safe at this dose, they wouldn’t have abandoned development. If you suggest there is literally no chance of it being dangerous, you’re even more ignorant than I thought. You can argue that you think the risk is minimal, or not as significant as some people to make it out to be, but to say that there is no potential for danger at all, you’re out of your mind. We’re done here, right?

 

[Old Witch]

What? Legal purposes? It was found to be effective for its intended purposes at 5-10mg. If they could conclude that it was also safe at this dose, they wouldn’t have abandoned development. If you suggest there is literally no chance of it being dangerous, you’re even more ignorant than I thought. You can argue that you think the risk is minimal, or not as significant as some people to make it out to be, but to say that there is no potential for danger at all, you’re out of your mind. We’re done here, right?

The legal problem in question is that once it caused cancer cells to grow in rats at a similar dose (according to legal standards) to an effective human dosage, it could no longer be deemed safe. How saccharine remains on the market is a mystery by the same standards used to deem cardarine unsafe to market.

No drug is entirely safe. I think cardarine poses an extremely minimal threat to a users health. As I said, safer than TAB which contains a proven human carcinogen.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

The legal problem in question is that once it caused cancer cells to grow in rats at a similar dose (according to legal standards) to an effective human dosage, it could no longer be deemed safe. How saccharine remains on the market is a mystery by the same standards used to deem cardarine unsafe to market.

No drug is entirely safe. I think cardarine poses an extremely minimal threat to a users health. As I said, safer than TAB which contains a proven human carcinogen.

Saying it’s potentially safer than something that’s not banned is somewhat fallacious logic. Two wrongs don’t make a right. We’re talking about evaluating a drug on its own merit, not relative to other drugs.

 

[Old Witch]

Saying it’s potentially safer than something that’s not banned is somewhat fallacious logic. Two wrongs don’t make a right. We’re talking about evaluating a drug on its own merit, not relative to other drugs.

So we should not correlate a compound's safety based upon legally deemed safe and widespread usage of other compounds with the same potential health risks?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

So we should not correlate a compound's safety based upon legally deemed safe and widespread usage of other compounds with the same potential health risks?

Nope. Two wrongs don’t make a right. There are plenty of drugs that are approved that probably shouldn’t be. The right answer would be to take these drugs off the market, not to approve everything that’s less dangerous. This would mean that all a manufacturer/developer would have to do to get FDA approval would be to show that their drug is safer than the single least safe approved drug, which means that even a single approved drug that shouldn’t be approved would allow pretty much anything and everything to be approved. It’s a recipe for disaster. This argument is just getting asinine...

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

Actually, it seems more likely that much as is the case for saccharine and some other proven rodent carcinogens, this compound's effects translate to human usage (as we all know, having used it) yet its carcinogenic properties are what do not translate. In the years now that this has been around (10since I heard of it) we have not had any cause for alarm in actual real world usage.

the problem with both things here i see is this - the saccharin study (Carcinogenicity of saccharin - 1978) started to get picked apart by 1980. it was totally debunked in 1995, again in 1999, and finally the nailed coffin from canada in 2014 - when they reversed decades old complete ban of it.

in that study (i have fun looking at 180+ scanned jpeg images - all you get, lol!) is that the lowest dose i could find given wistar rat, was 90mg/kg saccharin. others they used percent drinking water (7.5% highest) but don't know how to translate that. anyway - at 90mg/kg rat, that would equal 14.6 mg/kg human !!! a 220lb man would have to consume 1.46 *grams* per day !!! a packet of saccharin (sweet n low) contained just 30mg lol - no person had 48 packets of swet n low per day *and* study was discredited anyway - important.

next is "humans have used for 10 years"... lets talk when humans are 75 years old. when ask why see lifespan of wistar (and sprauge) rats excerpt -

The overall findings indicate that rats grow rapidly during their childhood and become sexually mature at about the sixth week, but attain social maturity 5-6 months later. In adulthood, every day of the animal is approximately equivalent to 34.8 human days (i.e., one rat month is comparable to three human years). Laboratory rats live about 2-3.5 years (average 3 years) while the worldwide life expectancy of humans is 80 years, with variations in countries in accordance with their socioeconomic conditions.

with gw, the dose that gave exercise mimetic properties to mouse, but gave cancer to rat, was only 8mg difference in humans.

i think by now, people have all the info to make a choice - there are a ton of ways to lose fat and get more endurance without gw.