myostatin inhibiting?
- Thread starter Toff
- Start date
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
Have you done a search on "Myostatin Inhibition" on here? You should find a ton of info that will allow you to draw your own conclusion.
Ricky10
Well-known member
Supposedly, (-)epi is really cheap to source now...unlike how it used to be when the original Follidrone came out. Those companies who offer straight up (-)epi products really need to reflect that in the pricing. Props to CEL with their Epi-Plex product as it is certainly a nice value.
justhere4comm
Banned
Regarding Myostatin
Invalid Link Removed
ABSTRACT
"The lack of myostatin promotes growth of skeletal muscle, and blockade of its activity has been proposed as a treatment for various muscle-wasting disorders. Here, we have examined two independent mouse lines that harbor mutations in the myostatin gene, constitutive null (Mstn−/−) and compact (Berlin High Line, BEHc/c). We report that, despite a larger muscle mass relative to age-matched wild types, there was no increase in maximum tetanic force generation, but that when expressed as a function of muscle size (specific force), muscles of myostatin-deficient mice were weaker than wild-type muscles. In addition, Mstn−/− muscle contracted and relaxed faster during a single twitch and had a marked increase in the number of type IIb fibers relative to wild-type controls. This change was also accompanied by a significant increase in type IIB fibers containing tubular aggregates. Moreover, the ratio of mitochondrial DNA to nuclear DNA and mitochondria number were decreased in myostatin-deficient muscle, suggesting a mitochondrial depletion. Overall, our results suggest that lack of myostatin compromises force production in association with loss of oxidative characteristics of skeletal muscle."
Invalid Link Removed
"The 75 mg used in the study can be supplemented through dark chocolate consumption. Eating 50g of pure dark chocolate containing at least 50% cocoa a day will provide a similar amount of (-)-epicatechin as the dose used in the study. The higher the cocoa content in the chocolate, the less you need to eat. For example, if you eat dark chocolate containing 85% cocoa, you’d only need to eat 30 g for an equivalent dose."
---
I'm skeptical as to the value of -(-epi) and any other proposed Myostatin inhibitor, or Follistatin aggregator. Then there is YK-11 which is called a SARM yet has the backbone of a steroid. It allegedly has the ability to inhibit Myostatin by increasing Follistatin. Of course you have the other connotations of it being a research chemical that go along with it.
Will science provide the solution to the never ending desire to grow muscles; lose fat, and obtain the dream body all honest people with themselves and others hope for? I'm sure the promise will ever be present, but as of yet, science has yet to produce the end all be all non-negative product to supplement muscle growth. The fountain of youth remains at a distant horizon, only showing temporary flashes of light prior to setting on another day dashing the hopes and dreams on the shores of us all.
Br1ck_Sh1thouse
Well-known member
Only question I'd have for this is, if one only cares about looking more svelte and cares less about matching strength then is this a bad thing?
justhere4comm
Banned
It could inhibit healing as it effects satellite cells by relaxing them which may lead to potential injury. Long term. I'm not sure it's a good thing. This could be the argument for moderation concealed in that nice package.
We put all sorts of supplements into our bodies in order to enhance performance and aid us in our venture towards a better us. We us stimulants in pre workouts; intra workouts with BCAA and Carbohydrates modified to suit the immediate needs of our bodies; proteins, and other things which could potentially cause harm in the long run.
All in pursuit of a betterment. Is it still better than 'modern medicine' in my eyes? In a way, I'm not a fan of pharmaceutical companies and long term illness set upon us by ignorance. The old saying, die young and looking good has moved to die older and leave them looking great anyway. I'm now in the latter camp of thinking because I'm an old fart.
I'm with you guys. It's your life, your choice. Make it and own it, but don't pay through the nose for it when you may not have to.. well I guess that last part is not quite a reality. Is it? We pay now or we pay later.
When I'm 80 and a "greeter" at Walmart, I'm going to want to look swole.
We put all sorts of supplements into our bodies in order to enhance performance and aid us in our venture towards a better us. We us stimulants in pre workouts; intra workouts with BCAA and Carbohydrates modified to suit the immediate needs of our bodies; proteins, and other things which could potentially cause harm in the long run.
All in pursuit of a betterment. Is it still better than 'modern medicine' in my eyes? In a way, I'm not a fan of pharmaceutical companies and long term illness set upon us by ignorance. The old saying, die young and looking good has moved to die older and leave them looking great anyway. I'm now in the latter camp of thinking because I'm an old fart.
I'm with you guys. It's your life, your choice. Make it and own it, but don't pay through the nose for it when you may not have to.. well I guess that last part is not quite a reality. Is it? We pay now or we pay later.
When I'm 80 and a "greeter" at Walmart, I'm going to want to look swole.
Br1ck_Sh1thouse
Well-known member
Also so I'm assuming in the study the only tested at the end of the study, what happens after a couple of months? Does the body eventually adjust and "repair" the deficiencies in the new "deficient" muscle? Or does strength training afterwards help? Definitely more to figure out.
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
You guys really need to search - BLR and I have gone on for hours over this.
justhere4comm
Banned
I've used Follidrone 2.0 (3 bottles) I'm not so sure I gained much from it, but it was being used with other compounds at the time so the conclusion, is inconclusive. For the cost involved, I'm not convinced it was of value to me, but it's just my opinion.
Can you paste a few words in here for this discussion?
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
If it worked, they'd be using it in hospitals, on kids with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.
GoHardOrGoHme
Board Sponsor
There is a pilot study exploring this
GoHardOrGoHme
Board Sponsor
Invalid Link Removed
Estimated end of study date is July 2018. We should have an answer on its effectiveness then. Trial was started in 2013.
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
100mg/day orally for 8 weeks? We have bros using 250, 300, and above already with shall we say, debatable muscle gains over natural progression. But cool that there's a trial, thanks for digging it up. 2018 it is!
GoHardOrGoHme
Board Sponsor
What was the purpose of you pointing out that its only 100mg for 8 weeks? Are you being critical? Are you debating whether or not they are using an effective dose? As far as I can tell, you first pointed out if epi was effective they would be exploring it to treat muscular dystrophy....so I can only assume you where unaware that they have been exploring that for years, and hopefully in a year or so we will have an answer on whether this is effective in this population.
Furthermore this study began in 2013, back before follidrone hit the market, before it blew up in popularity, before people began playing with doses anecdotally.
But I know you will ask the same question that I am asking EVEN IF it treats MD patients....what will it do to healthy athletes? Something both you and I can get behind. We want to know what does it do in a population we fall into.
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
I pointed out the dosage because unless the "purified epi" is something different than what has been sold for the last few years - we know exactly what 100mg will do... Not much in athletes other than blood flow and endurance increases.
Also - why was an 8 week study started in 2013 (if those dates are correct) taking until 2018 to complete? 5 years?
GoHardOrGoHme
Board Sponsor
Not much other then increases in blood flow and endurance....lol you make that sound like a trivial finding. Yeah it doesnt compare to steroids, but for the individual looking to take a product that will allow for more effective workouts without stepping into more advanced PEDs, increasing endurance and blood flow are beneficial.
To be honest, I can only speculate, but I would imagine you start with a small dose for a short duration. If there are positive results, you increase duration and or dose. Also they are probably studying long term outcomes when it comes to safety. What happens 2 years after you do 8 weeks of 100mg? Secondary outcomes state safety panel, so im guessing they are measuring long term outcomes as well and if there are any changes in muscle structure, are they permanent.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
It's a rare disease. You have to first find the patient that fits your study's criteria and then also find somebody who is willing to try a clinical trial.
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
Are we trying to re-invent the wheel? A re-brand on -(-)Epi?
Here's the first study that made a big splash for -(-)Epi in the supplement world:
Invalid Link Removed
Summarized by Examine.com here:
Invalid Link Removed
Note the dates - 2013 for that study as well
Thank God it didn't take 5 years. Right after this study became well circulated - is when all the supp companies started pushing -(-)Epi in 2014. I know this very well, as it was my join date on here and this is where I read about it and purchased it.
It's been over 3 years - nobody is getting knockout gene Mouse/Whippit Dog/Belgian Blue Bull/Null Baby huge on this stuff. The horse is dead. We even have blood plasma level studies showing it peaks in an hour, and drops just as fast.
Now maybe I'm misunderstanding your posts - If you are promoting it for General Health, Bloodflow, and Endurance I'm right there with you bud (although I choose to improve my endurance with different forms of cardio, as they are free). But we both know that in the beginning, with the pictures of skinned mice in the marketing - that it was all about getting huge muscles. And this would be a good place to re-reiterate that yes, numbers for Myostatin and Follistatin *will* change after consuming -(-)Epi - never said they wouldn't (I mean it's in the first study, a percentage any way). It's just that the amount of change has no practical, real world, effect. It's like a plant that bumps Testosterone up 50 points - whoopdy doo.
Distraught parents with dying children - they'll pay/do/try anything to save their kids. I'm sure there are message boards for these groups of parents out on the web where they discuss the various treatments that they have tried, to save their child's life. Find me posts by them, rejoicing in the cure that is -(-)Epi, that they can buy themselves for $30/month, without any medical/government red tape - and I'll change my tune.
And according to the guy that *discovered* Myostatin - you need to suppress it for a lot longer than this (and that says nothing about the degree, which -(-)Epi doesn't do enough of either)
Attachments
GoHardOrGoHme
Board Sponsor
Really I wasnt promoting much of anything lol. I was skimming through the forum and I saw your post alluding to the fact that if it worked they would be using it for muscular dystrophy. When I was researching epi years ago I came across the trials and decided to share it.
Now if you want to argue whether you think it's an worth spending money on, that is a completly subjective argument. One person may consider it worth their money, another may not. Right now, I choose not to spend my money on it even though I know my body responds well to it. My priorities have changed, and that translated to what was once worth my money, is now no longer worth my money.
General Health, endurance and blood flow are enough reasons for an individual to include it in the staples regimen. Personally, when I used epi, I saw an increase in muscular endurance and recovery. This led to more reps, more sets, and faster recovery. We both know if my diet is appropriate, my sleep is sufficient, the extra work indeed translated to more results(Im not talking about an extra 15lbs of rock hard muscle or 200lbs on my squat, but I noted that my progress came along faster then without it). When I train for rep ranges above 7 reps, I really see that I can make steady progress on epi. I hit my numbers more consistantly with less variation from week to week. I also experience better pumps, even random pumps throughout the day in the absence of carbs.
The whole myostatin inhibition argument, well, thats one I am aware of but I choose not to actively argue.
There was a time where I was so hungry for natural progress I would take anything that would work. During that time epi was a great addition. If someones priority is to only use nonhormonal supplementation, epi is a great option. If someone priority is just enjoying their time in the gym, staying fit, or using the gym as a stress relief, then year $39 bucks a month is a stretch.
I believe the important point here is to be realistic in expectations. I think epi is a great supplement that can fit into a number of lifestyles if one has the financial freedom to do so. $40 bucks feeds me whole food for a week....so if I had to choose epi or rice, chicken and veggies....I choose food all day everyday. One day I may have the income to allow me extra toys and goodies, at that point I'll probably add in epi again.
Now if you want to argue whether you think it's an worth spending money on, that is a completly subjective argument. One person may consider it worth their money, another may not. Right now, I choose not to spend my money on it even though I know my body responds well to it. My priorities have changed, and that translated to what was once worth my money, is now no longer worth my money.
General Health, endurance and blood flow are enough reasons for an individual to include it in the staples regimen. Personally, when I used epi, I saw an increase in muscular endurance and recovery. This led to more reps, more sets, and faster recovery. We both know if my diet is appropriate, my sleep is sufficient, the extra work indeed translated to more results(Im not talking about an extra 15lbs of rock hard muscle or 200lbs on my squat, but I noted that my progress came along faster then without it). When I train for rep ranges above 7 reps, I really see that I can make steady progress on epi. I hit my numbers more consistantly with less variation from week to week. I also experience better pumps, even random pumps throughout the day in the absence of carbs.
The whole myostatin inhibition argument, well, thats one I am aware of but I choose not to actively argue.
There was a time where I was so hungry for natural progress I would take anything that would work. During that time epi was a great addition. If someones priority is to only use nonhormonal supplementation, epi is a great option. If someone priority is just enjoying their time in the gym, staying fit, or using the gym as a stress relief, then year $39 bucks a month is a stretch.
I believe the important point here is to be realistic in expectations. I think epi is a great supplement that can fit into a number of lifestyles if one has the financial freedom to do so. $40 bucks feeds me whole food for a week....so if I had to choose epi or rice, chicken and veggies....I choose food all day everyday. One day I may have the income to allow me extra toys and goodies, at that point I'll probably add in epi again.