BamBam0319
Well-known member
Dogs can't eat grapes or chocolate but we sure as hell can.... Just saying...
Lol idk what I'm talking about. Ignore me
Lol idk what I'm talking about. Ignore me
GW501516 and cancer?
- Thread starter pogue
- Start date
- Status
yates84
Well-known member
yates84
Well-known member
I needed this laugh! Repped
IronMind
New member
"In summary, our study demonstrates that GW501516, via activation of PPARβ/δ and induction of PGC-1α, stimulates phosphorylation of PI3-K/Akt. This, in turn, leads to cell growth. Activation of PPARβ/δ inhibits AMPKα phosphorylation, but this event does not mediate the growth-promoting effects of GW501516. However, activation of AMPKα with AICAR inhibits PI3-K/Akt; this reduces the growth-promoting effects of GW501516 (Figure 6). This study unveils a novel mechanism by which GW501516 stimulates human lung carcinoma cell proliferation, and highlights the possibility of modulating these pathways to inhibit lung cancer cell growth." (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645530/)
StanleyG
Active member
I shoot things straight. I have no agenda so that allows me to be 100% honest with my input. All my input can be backed with both clinical studies as well as first hand experience. I understand as a rep you need to market your companies products. Thats all well and good but it restricts you from objectively giving input on different compounds. If your company sells it you have to post all positive things about the compound. Since I have no affiliations and no agendas I am not restricted as to my input. I think GW sucks. I think it does have some potentially undesirable maybe even dangerous sides and I do not think it is an effective compound at all. This is not me being negative it is me being honest. I have tried GW against my better judgement just so I could give it a chance and see if it is in fact effective. I tried it alone and thought it sucked. I reserved comment however as I have read that if used with aicar it is much more effective. So then I tried it with that and it still sucked.
The potentially dangerous sides are backed with solid studies. The effectiveness or lack thereof is backed by my own personal experience as well as the experience of many others. It seems to me the only people that think it is good are people with an agenda that are shilling for companies that sell it.
I am sorry you feel my contributions here are all negative but the fact is I have passed along a good bit of knowledge and experience here. I help many people via pm and am simply going to be honest regarding any compounds people are talking about. I am very responsible in that I only comment when I have clinical data to support my contentions and most important I comment when I have firsthand personal experience with a product. In my mind that doesn't make me negative, it shows that I have integrity. If you do not like my posts I am sure there is an ignore button, feel free to use it and you will not have to see them. In the mean time I will continue to post the way I do and share as much knowledge and experience as I can to help others and I will continue to read and learn from others. Especially those with no agendas that will simply honestly share their thoughts and personal experiences.
yates84
Well-known member
Rep or no rep, if a product sucks I'm going to say it sucks. GW is a literal life saver for me so maybe that's why I'm a little sensitive about this subject but there is no reason to come into a thread just to bash a compound.
StanleyG
Active member
Its not bashing a compound, it is sharing clinical data and personal experience, that's all. For you to imply my sole intention is to come in to a thread to bash you are out of line. I share factual data and personal experience. In this case it is negative. When I like a compound and have had success with it I share that as well.
If you don't like my posts put me on ignore, I really do not care. The amount of pm's I get from people thanking me and asking me for help tells me that I am doing some good here. If you don't feel that way so be it, I really do not care. I personally like reading all posts as I am open minded enough to realize I ca learn from anyone.
Also lets be honest here, you are full of **** if you say if you dont like a compound you will say it sucks. I guarantee that if there was an OL product that you didnt like you can bet your ass you would never say it sucked. You might just not sy anything but chances are you would take the company line and market it whether you like it or not. Perhaps you would just not say anything if you didnt like it but for you to say you would openly say it sucked is a lie. Thats the thing. It is the perfect example of how being a rep robs you of your integrity. You have an agenda that interferes with you beiing honest and unbiased. Hey thats is ok, it is what it is but let be honest about it instead of lying and saying you would "bash" as you call it, al OL product if you didnt like it. You and I and everyone knows you would not do that.
yates84
Well-known member
You obviously don't know me. My integrity will not be bought, and for you to say it so is complete bullsh1t. I don't care who you help or who thinks you're great, I see what I see and I am entitled to my opinion as well. GW completely eliminates the high bp sides that I get from cycling ph/ds so it is an A+ compound in my book.
StanleyG
Active member
Well we simply disagree then. When there are other compounds that can lower your BP that dont have some of the potential dangers GW has I think its foolish to use it for that purpose. Thats my opinion that I am entitled to express. Like I said, dont like my posts- put me on ignore- I dont care man.
Look lets face it, being a rep you are being bought. You cannot be totally honest, that's just they way it is. You cant go and say this OL product sucks and I don't think anyone should use it. That right there is being bought my friend. Like it or not thats the hat you chose to wear when you agreed to rep for a company. It ties your hands and compromises your integrity. Thats just the way it is. I see what I see and I am entitled to my opinion. (sound familiar).
BTW for your BP issue Id suggest low dose daily cialis. It has a super safe profile and is extremely effective at lowering BP along with several other benefits and there are no studies showing it causes of proliferates the growth pf cancer sells. It has numerous benefits and is very safe and will work for you. A much, much better choice than GW IMO.
heckler7
Active member
this right here, I tried it years back when the hype was starting and got nothing, just saying my experience I'd rather waste my money on something that delivers
heckler7
Active member
thats weird cause you girlfriend says I have a huge penis
yates84
Well-known member
I've tried cialis and every other drug there is for lowering bp. For me, gw and hawthorneberry keeps my bp perfect no matter what compound I am running. Cialis did have a positive effect just not nearly as pronounced as gw. As for all the other issues at hand I guess we must just agree to disagree.
BamBam0319
Well-known member
Dang man that's hilarious
heckler7
Active member
were you running other drugs when you noticed a lower BP or just GW
yates84
Well-known member
Both. I'm on 150mg of trest right now with 45mg of epistane. My bp got around 150/80 the first week so I started dosing 7mg of gw on top of my armicare pro. The next day my bp was down 15 points on the top end and was at 118/67 the day after. GW works great for me and I chose to spend my hard earned dollars on a large supply of Carder1ne with talk of the ban.
T-Bone
Banned
Agreed. I actually used it and the only thing I noticed was it dropped my blood sugar. No boost in endurance at all. Literally nothing else positive about it. It works well as a GDA though. I too have seen that no one really likes it besides here on AM. It's too bad when people with differing opinions on a product are seen as "haters" or "negative". I welcome people to share their experiences whether positive or negative.
Joedoubledose
Well-known member
Just for the record I have had good experiences with GW and definitely saw an increase in my endurance when it came to practicing boxing the heavy bag , I'm a daily cigarette smoker and I can deff tell the difference . Just thought I'd put that out there
Joedoubledose
Well-known member
This comment becomes immediately made invalid , being a rep does not restrict him from giving an honest input on compounds , what it clearly does is show your close minded enough to believe people are immediately no longer entitled to personal opinion just like you state because of their position as being a rep . Sorry, but for someone who is as educated as you may be , that's a pretty ignorant comment to make . That's all I have to say.
StanleyG
Active member
Look at the following:
I rest my case LOL.
Say what you want, being a rep DOES compromise your integrity. You cannot say you think a product that for example OL sells sucks being a rep for them even if it does. Even if you dont share anything about a product you dont like that is essentially compromising your integrity by omission. Say what you want but what I am saying is 100% true and everyone knows it. The fact that you arent honest enough to admit it simply bolsters my position. I would respect the rep that came out and said your right, sometimes I do compromise my integrity as I have a responsibility I took on to rep a company so sometimes I cannot be honest about how I feel. THAT would be integrity. So far all your are doing is making my case for me.
Thats all I have to say.
yates84
Well-known member
OL doesn't make a gw product anymore...
Joedoubledose
Well-known member
The funniest thing Is that ran our GW before I was a rep ,.you can look in my log aswell if you'd like? That way you can see my opinion before I had any affiliation with OL , and sadly no It seems your own credibility seems to be dwindling with each comment you make , showing your inability to be open minded about others and making generalizations shows your ignorance , You are only making your case worse to be honest .
StanleyG
Active member
I am aware of this. So what? After months of shilling a product no one could very well come out and say oh now it sucks now could they?
You your self said you just spent a bunch of money stocking up on your GW product while it can still be bought so lets be for real for a second.
So not one of you has the stones to say you know what Stan your right. Sometimes I do have to bite my tongue and compromise my integrity but overall I believe in the company I rep for so to me it is worth it to do so. Not one has said that. Thats telling in and of itself.
StanleyG
Active member
Guess that wasnt all you had to say huh. Why did I know that.
I am not concerned about my credibility. My posts and reputation across many forums speaks for itself. My knowledge and experience shows in the posts I make and the things I freely share not only here but on many forums. I write for several forums and am approached regularly to do so. To those that know the forums my reputation and credibility speaks for itself so I have no need to protect it. I post honestly and openly and that will not change. I stand behind all I have said here and the likes and rep I am getting for my posts contradicts your opinion greatly but that is ok. I openly welcome you to express your opinion now I will express mine. I have read your post history and you are the most guilty of all of being a total sell out shill. That is my opinion of you and your credibility. Now that we have both expressed our feelings on each others credibility you can move on to shilling the next round of OL products to be released regardless of your true feelings on the products and I can go on posting honestly, sharing facts based on clinical data, credible peer reviewed studies, and true unbiased personal opinion and others can determine who has credibility and who does not.
yates84
Well-known member
You think we are dropping it because it doesn't work?! Hey stanley, you are right. I believe in the product that my company used to make enough to buy a lifetime supply of it with my own money. Yep, that shows a huge lack of integrity. I bought it all just to be a company man lol
StanleyG
Active member
Honestly given its very questionable safety profile I feel it was and is very irresponsible that you ever sold it in the first place. Never mind its total lack of effectiveness with those that have used it that have no agenda. As I have pointed out and has been confirmed by others posting in this thread the common thoughts on GW at all forums but this one where you OL reps have effectively shilled GW is that it sucks.
So OL can know that they have reps that can effectively shill and sell a product that sucks and you guys can lay your head on your pillow at night knowing you shilled an ineffective and potentially dangerous product and got many people to buy it. You should be proud.
heckler7
Active member
its apparent that GW is a product that is faked or not completely dosed just as common as some people have had a good experience with it. a negetive review is as important if not more so because it should make you aware you run a risk of getting scammed so you need to research a little harder to get what you are paying for.
As far as reps go, I got scammed twice purchasing junk GW from labs whose reps said it was top notch
As far as reps go, I got scammed twice purchasing junk GW from labs whose reps said it was top notch
StanleyG
Active member
Either that or GW is in fact an ineffective compound which is my and the majority of others that have used the compounds opinion. I used GW that I got 3rd party COA and HPLC data on and I thought it was garbage when run alone or with aicar. Given this experience its hard to say if the GW you got was bunk or that your experience was just equivalent to the majority of the people across most forums who used it.
heckler7
Active member
I hang out on a few other boards where people tell it like it is, and others appreciate real experience, this board seems like a bunch of sheep regurgitating the same BS the last said and trolling grammar more than talking about AAS use
StanleyG
Active member
There are a lot of young people here that need the help and experience so they do things right and aren't steered in the direction you are talking about. I come here to try to be a part of the solution and help as many as I can. Also there are some sharp members here that I learn from as well. These young guys may not have a ton of experience but many have a good knowledge base and some refreshing thoughts and ideas. I try to keep an open mind and I learn as well as help out here.
I understand your evaluation of the forum but I tend to like it here and feel I can help a lot of young people and learn from them as well. The area where the most experience and advice is required is in the aas forum so you should go there and share your thoughts and experience. Giving to the forum tends to make you change your thoughts on it and it opens your mind and you would be surprised and what you get out of the forum by simply sharing and trying to make it better.
tballz
New member
This is why I dont spend that much time here. You and Stanley are both right on the money. Stanley makes a good point though maybe I should come here and make an effort to be a part of the solution. It does seem like there is less prevalent blatant shilling here than there used to be and when it does occur there are enough honest members here to call people out on it and more and more they are. Thats a good thing for the board. This is turning out to be a good thread for the forum I think.
zman86
Member
So far I used various SARMs made from 3 companies and they all worked well.
I plan on using primeval GW on my next cut/recomp, my opinions will be very honest. I've read plenty of people saying LGD, osta, s4 didn't work for them. Everyone respond differently, a guy who went through heavy cycles of AAS might not respond well to LGD and mild PHs like triumph. With that said I don't expect powerful lipolysis effects of clen or even albuterol with GW.
Edit:
I think a lot of the people who talked down GW are people who expected powerful lipolysis effects from it and when they don't get that result they instantly declare it placebo... Take CLA for example, I think its a great supplement to take long term for body recomp. But many people called it placebo...because they probably eat like crap and thus CLA is not gonna help them in the short or long run.
I plan on using primeval GW on my next cut/recomp, my opinions will be very honest. I've read plenty of people saying LGD, osta, s4 didn't work for them. Everyone respond differently, a guy who went through heavy cycles of AAS might not respond well to LGD and mild PHs like triumph. With that said I don't expect powerful lipolysis effects of clen or even albuterol with GW.
Edit:
I think a lot of the people who talked down GW are people who expected powerful lipolysis effects from it and when they don't get that result they instantly declare it placebo... Take CLA for example, I think its a great supplement to take long term for body recomp. But many people called it placebo...because they probably eat like crap and thus CLA is not gonna help them in the short or long run.
NewAgeMayan
Well-known member
Unfortunately there is, and nor do I expect there to ever be, no thorough meta-analysis of the multitude studies examining the role gw has in regards to cancer proliferation. The science on this topic appears somewhat inconclusive; for every study demonstrating ppard agonists such as gw to have a correlative role with proliferation, there is at least one demonstrating them to inhibit it.
heckler7
Active member
from what is claimed on bb forums I did not get, not even a mild reaction if there was, but I will concede that zman and new age made valid points. I can tell you this I ran GW by itself and was expecting some bf% loss and engery boost. I saw neither. then I did a cycle of dbol/test e / tren ace and e/ mast e / and proviron to which I concluded that I would rather spend $50 on clen to proceed my next cycle or add $50 worth of abombs next run
StanleyG
Active member
This is not true per se, or at least your conclusion or the conclusion you are eluding to isnt true or it is at the very least misleading.
The issue is this, there are studies that show prar agonists generally inhibit cancer BUT the studies done specifically on GW show cancer cell proliferation. This would lead anyone to conclude that for whatever reason GW does not behave like most prar agonists do when it comes to this. That fact alone leads one to conclude that if you are going to take a prar agonist GW would be one you would wish to avoid.
pogue
Banned
I see a lot of people here using arguments that basically amounts to a logical fallacy. 'Well, it's okay to take this because everything else causes cancer anyway.' which is a pretty ludicrous assertion. These are essentially untested and undeveloped drugs that are being allowed to be sold under the radar by supplement companies. While I don't have a problem with this per se, users shouldn't delude themselves with the idea that they're safe or we have any idea what the long term side effects of using them might be.
A drug company abandoned development of this compound after some studies were made public that they were linked or caused cancer in animals they were testing it on. To me, that says a lot. If it were a viable drug they would have continued development of it and brought it to market. Since we don't have definitive evidence that using this in humans causes cancer, but it does appear to do so in lab animals, I would definitely steer clear of this particular compound. If you're willing to take the risks, so be it, be remember that cancer often takes years, sometimes decades to develop. Is your temporary need to increase performance now worth that risk years down the road?
That's not a study showing creatine can causer cancer. It's a study saying men who previously used creatine (amongst other things) later developed cancer which may or may have not been related.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
A drug company abandoned development of this compound after some studies were made public that they were linked or caused cancer in animals they were testing it on. To me, that says a lot. If it were a viable drug they would have continued development of it and brought it to market. Since we don't have definitive evidence that using this in humans causes cancer, but it does appear to do so in lab animals, I would definitely steer clear of this particular compound. If you're willing to take the risks, so be it, be remember that cancer often takes years, sometimes decades to develop. Is your temporary need to increase performance now worth that risk years down the road?
That's not a study showing creatine can causer cancer. It's a study saying men who previously used creatine (amongst other things) later developed cancer which may or may have not been related.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
NewAgeMayan
Well-known member
To be charitable and allow you the oppurtunity to clarify...are you claiming here that every study done on GW shows cancer cell proliferation, where those studies have been specifically examining this relation?
bighulksmash
Legend
Invalid Link Removed as promised. .. read well you guys ... when have you seen a 200lb man dose gw at 900mg a day . Those rodents were given supraphysiological dosages... skepticism is fine but I feel like this has become a bashing competition amongst us ...
StanleyG
Active member
I do not need your charity. There are no studies specifically on GW showing it inhibits cancer cell proliferation however there are studies on it that show it promotes cancer cell proliferation.
You are taking a class of compounds and lumping them all together saying they all work this way. That is not prudent. There are studies showing prar agonists can inhibit cancer cell proliferation but there are specific studies on GW showing it promotes cancer cell proliferation.
The only prudent conclusion would be that GW does not behave like other prar agonists when it comes to effects on cancer cells.
StanleyG
Active member
Show me something where the individual can accurately calculate the HED - because he sure as hell does not for christs sake.
bighulksmash
Legend
Ill pull one down off the server hang in there a bit . -Foxhound out
bighulksmash
Legend
Accelerated fat loss, increased muscular endurance, improved metabolic health; these are just a few of the ways in which GW-5015156 can benefit our bodybuilding progress. So, it wasn’t surprising when it became all the rage back when it was first released 5 or so years ago, but what was surprising was its relatively quick fall from grace. Despite possessing a list of benefits applicable to nearly every bodybuilding goal, its time in the limelight was cut short when W.A.D.A (World Anti-Doping Agency) announced that GW-501516 had been “withdrawn from research by the pharmaceutical company and terminated when serious toxicities were discovered in pre-clinical studies”.
Supposedly, GW-501516 was carcinogenic, causing tumors in rat test subjects. Initial reports revealed that tumor formation had occurred in numerous organs at all dosage levels, affecting the liver, bladder, stomach, skin, thyroid, tongue, testes, ovaries and womb. This really put a damper on its résumé and before long, warnings started popping up all over the place, admonishing prospective users to stay away. As one might expect, the kneejerk reaction was to stop using the stuff, which at the time seemed fairly reasonable. After all, if W.A.D.A thought it was dangerous enough to release an official statement warning athletes of its potential side effects, there was probably a good reason for it, or so it was assumed.
With the study results having been confirmed, GW’s popularity plummeted—the general consensus being that it was too risky to use, but was this conclusion premature? At the time, the decision to abstain was probably a wise one, at least until we found out a little bit more about the stuff. Since then, additional information has come to light. A more accurate interpretation of the study results, as well as a meta-analysis of the available anecdotal evidence, has helped shape a more favorable view of this S.A.R.M.
When evaluating the clinical trials, we need to understand that while animal studies can serve as a useful guide, alerting us to potential issues in human beings, we shouldn’t automatically assume that we will be affected in the same way. Extrapolation of this sort is never entertained by scientists, as animal physiology—in this case rat physiology—is often quite different from people.
Clenbuterol, a commonly used bodybuilding drug, is a great example. Not only are animals able to metabolize massive dosages (relative to humans) of clen without dying, but it imparts an extreme anabolic effect, increasing muscle mass up to 30% within a short period of time. Furthermore, these animals did not weight train, eat huge quantities of protein, or engage in any of the other practices typically employed by bodybuilders attempting to grow muscle tissue. They were simply given large doses of the drug and they grew like weeds.
By comparison, human tolerance is very low, allowing us to use just a tiny fraction of the doses administered in animals. Likewise, our anabolic response is comparatively poor, with little to no muscle gain occurring even when using large doses in the presence of beta blockers (beta blockers can be used to help us tolerate large doses of clenbuterol by preventing lethal heart rate acceleration). This difference in physiological response shows us very clearly that animal studies are often an unreliable indicator of human response. Of course, this does not mean we should automatically discount the results, but we cannot draw any conclusions from them.
Equally important are the variables of relative dose and duration of use. The rats in the study (there were actually two studies) were administered doses ranging from 5-80 mg/kg of bodyweight, per day With Wistar rats (the type of rat used in the study) usually weighing 1 pound or less, the following figures will be based on a rat weight of ½ kg (slightly over 1 lb). Using that figure, the rats were given a dose of GW ranging from 2.5-40 mg daily. Applying those same dosing guidelines to humans, an equivalent dose for a 100 kg male would be 500-8,000 mg per day. Most bodybuilders only use 5-20 mg/day, meaning the rat dose was 25-160X higher than what is normally used in humans.
Furthermore, this study lasted 104 weeks; exactly 2 years. With Wistar rats having a lifespan of 2-3 years, these rats were subjected to treatment for 66-100% of their lifetime. If we put this in human terms (a typical bottle of GW-501516 contains 30 servings of 10 mg each), it would be like giving a newborn baby 1.66-27 bottles of GW-501516 per day and continuing treatment through adulthood for all, or most of its life. With an average bodybuilding dose of 1/30th of a bottle per day for 30-60 days, only a moron would equate the two. Factor in cross-species differences in physiological response and any faith in extrapolation becomes incredibly difficult to sustain.
Given the seriousness of the accusations (that GW-501516 causes cancer), even though it has little to stand on, we still need to take it seriously. Fortunately, we are not left in the dark regarding the real-world use of this drug, as 1,000’s of bodybuilders and other athletes have now been using it for over a half-decade without experiencing any medical problems, let alone cancer. There is also independent research being conducted, with no signs of cancer in sight, even when exceeding the dosages used in the above referenced study.
When looking at the evidence as a whole, it seem as if the initial cancer scare was nothing more than that—a scare. Let’s not forget all the other chemicals/drugs which were shown to cause cancer in research animals under similar circumstances, but were subsequently approved by the FDA and have now been in use by the general public for decades. Artificial sweeteners, anyone? Although I hate to pull the honesty card here, let’s also not forget that Big Pharma isn’t known for being the most moral/honest entity around town. Self-interest is Big Pharma’s middle name, but I digress. At this point, although one cannot state definitively that GW-501516 is safe (the same can be said for many other commonly used bodybuilding drugs), it appears that the risk is minimal, especially when adhering to conventional cycling guidelines.
Questions of safety aside, what makes this such a great bodybuilding drug? Although it does not provide overly dramatic results in any single area (except for perhaps its positive effect on metabolic health), the totality of its effects are nothing short of impressive. One of its most desirable benefits is its ability to stimulate fat loss. While I am not going to get into the science of “how” this stuff works (there are already plenty of articles available on the subject), I do want to touch on what differentiates GW-501516 from its peers.
Unlike most of the fat loss drugs today, GW does not stimulate the nervous system. Personally, I find this to be a relief, as there are plenty of times I don’t feel like having to contend with the jitters, nervousness, anxiety, or post-use crash, all of which are common occurrences with drugs like clenbuterol, ephedrine, caffeine, and every other stimulant drug out there. Similar to growth hormone, the fat loss effects of GW are not rapid, but they are consistent and ongoing, allowing us to accelerate fat loss over the long haul without any of the typical side effects associated with nervous system stimulation. This alone makes it worthy of consideration.
It is also one of the few non-stimulant drugs which induces fat loss via an increased rate of oxidation (the use of fat for energy—fat burning). There are two primary steps involved in the fat loss process: oxidation and lipolysis. Lipolysis is a term used to describe the release of fatty acids from the fat cell into the bloodstream, making them more likely to be used by the body for energy. Oxidation describes the use/burning of fat for energy. Both of these steps must occur in order for fat loss to take place. If fat is not first released from the fat cell, it cannot be used for energy. In the same way, if newly released fat is not used for energy, it will simply be re-deposited into the fat cell.
If one of these processes begins to exceed the other, the slower process is said to be the rate-limiting factor. In other words, the rate of fat loss is limited by the weakest link. When it comes to fat loss, oxidation is usually the rate-limiting factor. This make GW-501516 an excellent stacker with growth hormone, as its ability to increase oxidation pairs well with GH’s lipolytic effect, increasing the rate of fat loss beyond what can be achieved with either one alone.
But this is not the only reason GW-501516 makes a good match with growth hormone. As many of you probably know, as awesome a drug as GH is, it has some pretty significant downsides, especially those related to metabolic health. When used at replacement doses, it is a strictly positive addition to one’s program, leading to improvements in metabolic health and overall functioning, but at the doses normally used by bodybuilders, its injurious effects are undeniable.
Most notably, GH causes a decrease in insulin sensitivity and has been shown to result in clinical insulin resistance at doses as low as 5 IU/day. This has a barrage of negative effects on the body, such as impaired glucose metabolism, diminished fat loss, and visceral fat build-up, to name a few.
Its been used for over 7 years by the gov and private labs not one case of cancer i personally think this is being snowballed into a large heaping ball of shyt
Supposedly, GW-501516 was carcinogenic, causing tumors in rat test subjects. Initial reports revealed that tumor formation had occurred in numerous organs at all dosage levels, affecting the liver, bladder, stomach, skin, thyroid, tongue, testes, ovaries and womb. This really put a damper on its résumé and before long, warnings started popping up all over the place, admonishing prospective users to stay away. As one might expect, the kneejerk reaction was to stop using the stuff, which at the time seemed fairly reasonable. After all, if W.A.D.A thought it was dangerous enough to release an official statement warning athletes of its potential side effects, there was probably a good reason for it, or so it was assumed.
With the study results having been confirmed, GW’s popularity plummeted—the general consensus being that it was too risky to use, but was this conclusion premature? At the time, the decision to abstain was probably a wise one, at least until we found out a little bit more about the stuff. Since then, additional information has come to light. A more accurate interpretation of the study results, as well as a meta-analysis of the available anecdotal evidence, has helped shape a more favorable view of this S.A.R.M.
When evaluating the clinical trials, we need to understand that while animal studies can serve as a useful guide, alerting us to potential issues in human beings, we shouldn’t automatically assume that we will be affected in the same way. Extrapolation of this sort is never entertained by scientists, as animal physiology—in this case rat physiology—is often quite different from people.
Clenbuterol, a commonly used bodybuilding drug, is a great example. Not only are animals able to metabolize massive dosages (relative to humans) of clen without dying, but it imparts an extreme anabolic effect, increasing muscle mass up to 30% within a short period of time. Furthermore, these animals did not weight train, eat huge quantities of protein, or engage in any of the other practices typically employed by bodybuilders attempting to grow muscle tissue. They were simply given large doses of the drug and they grew like weeds.
By comparison, human tolerance is very low, allowing us to use just a tiny fraction of the doses administered in animals. Likewise, our anabolic response is comparatively poor, with little to no muscle gain occurring even when using large doses in the presence of beta blockers (beta blockers can be used to help us tolerate large doses of clenbuterol by preventing lethal heart rate acceleration). This difference in physiological response shows us very clearly that animal studies are often an unreliable indicator of human response. Of course, this does not mean we should automatically discount the results, but we cannot draw any conclusions from them.
Equally important are the variables of relative dose and duration of use. The rats in the study (there were actually two studies) were administered doses ranging from 5-80 mg/kg of bodyweight, per day With Wistar rats (the type of rat used in the study) usually weighing 1 pound or less, the following figures will be based on a rat weight of ½ kg (slightly over 1 lb). Using that figure, the rats were given a dose of GW ranging from 2.5-40 mg daily. Applying those same dosing guidelines to humans, an equivalent dose for a 100 kg male would be 500-8,000 mg per day. Most bodybuilders only use 5-20 mg/day, meaning the rat dose was 25-160X higher than what is normally used in humans.
Furthermore, this study lasted 104 weeks; exactly 2 years. With Wistar rats having a lifespan of 2-3 years, these rats were subjected to treatment for 66-100% of their lifetime. If we put this in human terms (a typical bottle of GW-501516 contains 30 servings of 10 mg each), it would be like giving a newborn baby 1.66-27 bottles of GW-501516 per day and continuing treatment through adulthood for all, or most of its life. With an average bodybuilding dose of 1/30th of a bottle per day for 30-60 days, only a moron would equate the two. Factor in cross-species differences in physiological response and any faith in extrapolation becomes incredibly difficult to sustain.
Given the seriousness of the accusations (that GW-501516 causes cancer), even though it has little to stand on, we still need to take it seriously. Fortunately, we are not left in the dark regarding the real-world use of this drug, as 1,000’s of bodybuilders and other athletes have now been using it for over a half-decade without experiencing any medical problems, let alone cancer. There is also independent research being conducted, with no signs of cancer in sight, even when exceeding the dosages used in the above referenced study.
When looking at the evidence as a whole, it seem as if the initial cancer scare was nothing more than that—a scare. Let’s not forget all the other chemicals/drugs which were shown to cause cancer in research animals under similar circumstances, but were subsequently approved by the FDA and have now been in use by the general public for decades. Artificial sweeteners, anyone? Although I hate to pull the honesty card here, let’s also not forget that Big Pharma isn’t known for being the most moral/honest entity around town. Self-interest is Big Pharma’s middle name, but I digress. At this point, although one cannot state definitively that GW-501516 is safe (the same can be said for many other commonly used bodybuilding drugs), it appears that the risk is minimal, especially when adhering to conventional cycling guidelines.
Questions of safety aside, what makes this such a great bodybuilding drug? Although it does not provide overly dramatic results in any single area (except for perhaps its positive effect on metabolic health), the totality of its effects are nothing short of impressive. One of its most desirable benefits is its ability to stimulate fat loss. While I am not going to get into the science of “how” this stuff works (there are already plenty of articles available on the subject), I do want to touch on what differentiates GW-501516 from its peers.
Unlike most of the fat loss drugs today, GW does not stimulate the nervous system. Personally, I find this to be a relief, as there are plenty of times I don’t feel like having to contend with the jitters, nervousness, anxiety, or post-use crash, all of which are common occurrences with drugs like clenbuterol, ephedrine, caffeine, and every other stimulant drug out there. Similar to growth hormone, the fat loss effects of GW are not rapid, but they are consistent and ongoing, allowing us to accelerate fat loss over the long haul without any of the typical side effects associated with nervous system stimulation. This alone makes it worthy of consideration.
It is also one of the few non-stimulant drugs which induces fat loss via an increased rate of oxidation (the use of fat for energy—fat burning). There are two primary steps involved in the fat loss process: oxidation and lipolysis. Lipolysis is a term used to describe the release of fatty acids from the fat cell into the bloodstream, making them more likely to be used by the body for energy. Oxidation describes the use/burning of fat for energy. Both of these steps must occur in order for fat loss to take place. If fat is not first released from the fat cell, it cannot be used for energy. In the same way, if newly released fat is not used for energy, it will simply be re-deposited into the fat cell.
If one of these processes begins to exceed the other, the slower process is said to be the rate-limiting factor. In other words, the rate of fat loss is limited by the weakest link. When it comes to fat loss, oxidation is usually the rate-limiting factor. This make GW-501516 an excellent stacker with growth hormone, as its ability to increase oxidation pairs well with GH’s lipolytic effect, increasing the rate of fat loss beyond what can be achieved with either one alone.
But this is not the only reason GW-501516 makes a good match with growth hormone. As many of you probably know, as awesome a drug as GH is, it has some pretty significant downsides, especially those related to metabolic health. When used at replacement doses, it is a strictly positive addition to one’s program, leading to improvements in metabolic health and overall functioning, but at the doses normally used by bodybuilders, its injurious effects are undeniable.
Most notably, GH causes a decrease in insulin sensitivity and has been shown to result in clinical insulin resistance at doses as low as 5 IU/day. This has a barrage of negative effects on the body, such as impaired glucose metabolism, diminished fat loss, and visceral fat build-up, to name a few.
Its been used for over 7 years by the gov and private labs not one case of cancer i personally think this is being snowballed into a large heaping ball of shyt
NewAgeMayan
Well-known member
I will concede that might well be the case, I would have to go back over the studies for my own verification.
StanleyG
Active member
and again a study that does not accurately calculate HED, they are not using the proper BSA method for HED calculations. The ignorance displayed by these guys is disgusting. If they used the accurate method the HED would be 25mg using a 1/2 kg rat - 180-190lb man..
Trust me my disgust is not aimed at you - it is aimed at the purveyors of misinformation. Its not good when it comes to matters of peoples health and well being.
NoAddedHmones
Well-known member
LOL how were they given supraphysiological dosages if GW501516 is not a naturally occurring compound in rats or humans? That article was written by someone with zero understanding of anything other than the ability to type words into google.
jbryand101b
Banned
Do you brush your teeth using tooth paste ? An ingredient found in it leads to cancer.
bighulksmash
Legend
supraphysiologic su·pra·phys·i·o·log·ic (sōō'prə-fĭz'ē-ə-lŏj'ĭk) or su·pra·phys·i·o·log·i·cal (-ĭ-kəl)
adj.
Indicating a dose that is larger ormore potent of a chemical agent that mimics a hormone or chemical compound NoAddedHmones i failed English class haha hence the copy and splat
bighulksmash
Legend
NoAddedHmones
Well-known member
Yep, and do you see how that makes no sense?
berazzled
Active member
So that's who got it all! Hoarder!
- Status