Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

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

ucimigrate

Active member
I think the big question is why Cardarine caused cancer in rats, but not in humans.

Some people have given insightful blog posts, but that is not as good as scientific research.

I know rats are more resilient than humans. So, if something harms them, you would expect humans to have even more problems.

Why did the Cardarine not cause problems in humans so far?

Who can we ask?
 
ucimigrate said:
I think the big question is why Cardarine caused cancer in rats, but not in humans.

Some people have given insightful blog posts, but that is not as good as scientific research.

I know rats are more resilient than humans. So, if something harms them, you would expect humans to have even more problems.

Why did the Cardarine not cause problems in humans so far?

Who can we ask?
Click to expand...

Leaps of faith:
At this point moving forward it is a leap of faith and your desire to explore the deep end of an unknown.
I've done various research projects where the worst set me back 2 years with regards to my health but my body rebounded nicely... sort of. Mentally I'm ok... lol. (sort of) That was in the study of sleep deprivation by the way, not chemicals. At least I didn't die like the other guy.

What did I learn?
Don't (not) sleep for 2 weeks and 6 days. You'll probably die, but the hallucinations and out of body experiences were awesome. The body produces the most powerful opiates when needed.

The reality:
Long-term human studies are not in the future of this compound.
 
ucimigrate said:
I think the big question is why Cardarine caused cancer in rats, but not in humans.

Some people have given insightful blog posts, but that is not as good as scientific research.

I know rats are more resilient than humans. So, if something harms them, you would expect humans to have even more problems.

Why did the Cardarine not cause problems in humans so far?

Who can we ask?
Click to expand...

They never setup a human trial so you dont know that it doesnt.
 
Guys, I am serious. I think we need to explore the cancer option, since Cardarine is a great chemical compound (especially when combined with Ostarine and maybe a pre-workout stimulant as mild as caffeine).

Beyond BroScience, we need to take care of our health.

Why did Cardarine cause cancer to spread so rapidly in rats, so predictably? But, in humans, nothing that we can notice so far?
 
Rats develop cancer much faster than humans, cardarine never gave rats cancer but supposedly increase the speed of growth in tumours while some studies show it has no effect in humans or might actually decrease the speed of growth making it beneficial for us.

Basically it has never shown to cause or increase cancer but since they don't come with a statement that it doesn't we just don't know for sure.
 
Chados said:
Rats develop cancer much faster than humans, cardarine never gave rats cancer but supposedly increase the speed of growth in tumours while some studies show it has no effect in humans or might actually decrease the speed of growth making it beneficial for us.

Basically it has never shown to cause or increase cancer but since they don't come with a statement that it doesn't we just don't know for sure.
Click to expand...
Dude, you can’t say that some studies show it has no effect in humans. Human cells (in vitro) is not the same as a human (in vivo). Even the authors of the cell studies admit this inherent limitation of in vitro studies. It’s possible that it wouldn’t increase cancer growth in humans, but no study has shown this yet. We just don’t know either way really, but GSK and Ligand have already moved on to the next thing, so we may never know.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Dude, you can’t say that some studies show it has no effect in humans. Human cells (in vitro) is not the same as a human (in vivo). Even the authors of the cell studies admit this inherent limitation of in vitro studies. It’s possible that it wouldn’t increase cancer growth in humans, but no study has shown this yet. We just don’t know either way really, but GSK and Ligand have already moved on to the next thing, so we may never know.
Click to expand...

It says, gives more proof that it has no effect in humans, the rat studies comes with just as much flaws. There are no proof either way
 
Chados said:
It says, gives more proof that it has no effect in humans, the rat studies comes with just as much flaws. There are no proof either way
Click to expand...
No, you said “some studies show it has no effects in humans or might actually decrease the speed of growth...”

There are NO studies that even evaluate cancer growth in HUMANS. In vitro studies may SUGGEST something, but they don’t SHOW anything in regards to an actual living human.

I agree we don’t know for sure either way, but saying that we have human studies showing it has no effect or decreases growth isn’t true and gives a false picture of the reality of the research. It may sound like semantics, but it makes a difference.
 
I believe the study that found increase cancer rates in rats used a relatively crazy dosages. Much more than is recommended for humans to receive the benefits of Cardarine
 
Life is a sexually transmitted disease and the mortality rate is one hundred percent. - R. D. Laing -
 
muscleupcrohn said:
No, you said “some studies show it has no effects in humans or might actually decrease the speed of growth...”

There are NO studies that even evaluate cancer growth in HUMANS. In vitro studies may SUGGEST something, but they don’t SHOW anything in regards to an actual living human.

I agree we don’t know for sure either way, but saying that we have human studies showing it has no effect or decreases growth isn’t true and gives a false picture of the reality of the research. It may sound like semantics, but it makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Sure I'll take my hat off
 
Could be wrong but I believe it was 200mg a day for a 2 year period in the lab rat studies. Quite possibly the high dose in such a long period ?. But not sure why with the actual science behind it.
 
omen856 said:
Could be wrong but I believe it was 200mg a day for a 2 year period in the lab rat studies. Quite possibly the high dose in such a long period 浪. But not sure why with the actual science behind it.
Click to expand...
That study used multiple doses that are equivalent to less than 200mg, and there are other rodent studies noting increased growth as well (one point of contention is if it "caused cancer" or simply "increased the growth of existing cancer or the effects of carcinogens"). The lowest dose used was actually equivalent to slightly less than 30mg/day for a 60kg human, with other doses used being equivalent to ~50mg/day for a 60kg human. Higher doses were used as well, but the lower doses are what we're talking about here I suppose.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
That study used multiple doses that are equivalent to less than 200mg, and there are other rodent studies noting increased growth as well (one point of contention is if it "caused cancer" or simply "increased the growth of existing cancer or the effects of carcinogens"). The lowest dose used was actually equivalent to slightly less than 30mg/day for a 60kg human, with other doses used being equivalent to ~50mg/day for a 60kg human. Higher doses were used as well, but the lower doses are what we're talking about here I suppose.
Click to expand...
I'm interested in all studies.
The 200mg for 2 years is preposterous.
 
Cgkone said:
I'm interested in all studies.
The 200mg for 2 years is preposterous.
Click to expand...
Did you even read my post? The same study that used 200mg equivalent for two years also used equivalent to 30 and 50mg. You can argue that it only increased cancer that happened either way (which would mean it increases cancer growth or potentiates carcinogens, not actually causes cancer), but the dose used isn’t a point of contention, as lower AND high doses were used. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this...
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Did you even read my post? The same study that used 200mg equivalent for two years also used equivalent to 30 and 50mg. You can argue that it only increased cancer that happened either way (which would mean it increases cancer growth or potentiates carcinogens, not actually causes cancer), but the dose used isn’t a point of contention, as lower AND high doses were used. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this...
Click to expand...
30 mg for 2 years is preposterous
 
Cgkone said:
30 mg for 2 years is preposterous
Click to expand...
In a study used to develop a preliminary estimate of long term safety? That’s not crazy at all. Remember, this was a drug meant/designed to be used daily/indefinitely, NOT for fitness people. Also, a 30mg dose in a rodent safety study is VERY conservative when people are running 20-25mg. The standard FDA factor of safety of 10. So that 30mg would go down to 3mg if it was found to be safe, which it wasn’t, so a “safe” starting dose would be less than 3mg.

Also, what about the 6 week rodent study with doses equivalent to ~50mg? Just ignore that study? If you think that it’s not a relevant study because it’s twice the dose people use, you have no idea how safety studies work.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
In a study used to develop a preliminary estimate of long term safety? That’s not crazy at all. Remember, this was a drug meant/designed to be used daily/indefinitely, NOT for fitness people. Also, a 30mg dose in a rodent safety study is VERY conservative when people are running 20-25mg. The standard FDA factor of safety of 10. So that 30mg would go down to 3mg if it was found to be safe, which it wasn’t, so a “safe” starting dose would be less than 3mg.

Also, what about the 6 week rodent study with doses equivalent to ~50mg? Just ignore that study? If you think that it’s not a relevant study because it’s twice the dose people use, you have no idea how safety studies work.
Click to expand...
I didn't reference that study I reference the 2-year study. What I would like to see is a study with a dosage that normal people take for amount of time normal people run that drug for
 
Which I guess we'll find out in about 20 years if all of us have cancer or not ....well all of us that take it
 
Cgkone said:
I didn't reference that study I reference the 2-year study. What I would like to see is a study with a dosage that normal people take for amount of time normal people run that drug for
Click to expand...
There are some human studies for a few weeks that used 5-10mg/day. Nothing I’ve seen with 20-25mg though. 5-10mg was found to be safe, so if you want to run ONE cycle of 5-10mg/day for a few weeks, you’ll likely be fine. What we DON’T know is what happens if you use it for longer, OR if you use it REPEATEDLY. Just because you don’t use it for more than 4 weeks in a row doesn’t mean that you’re not using it long-term if you’re using it for 4 weeks every few months. We simply have no idea what happens if someone uses it multiple times a year in 4-week cycles at any dose, let alone 20-25mg/day.

We’re also likely never to see a longer term or higher dose study given the fact that it’s been abandoned and moved on to the next thing/drug. No one will EVER approve a study to determine if a drug causes cancer in humans if we aren’t sure it doesn’t in rodents. If safety is confirmed in rodents, THEN it moves on to more human studies. That didn’t happen here, and likely never will.
 
Cgkone said:
Which I guess we'll find out in about 20 years if all of us have cancer or not ....well all of us that take it
Click to expand...
That's one way to look at it, although even that will be hard to determine anything, as we don't really know if you would have gotten cancer or not to begin with. We'd have to find the cancer rate for the average person your age/demographic/etc and see how it compares to the rate of cardarine users in the same demographic/age/etc. But even then, if the average cardarine user also uses anabolics/etc., we'd now have to compare the rate of caner for people who use anabolics but NOT cardarine to the rate of people who user anabolics AND cardarine.

TL;DR: It'd be very hard to determine if cardarine is actually the cause of cancer down the road haha.
 
Anyway, 10mg/day for 12 weeks was both the highest dose and the longest duration tested (and found to be safe) in humans. Anything higher than that dose, or longer than that duration, is uncharted waters. Furthermore, combining it with things like AAS/GH/etc is also inherently uncharted waters, as is running it more than once, even if it's <12 weeks each cycle. The only thing we can likely say for now is that if you use a single cycle of no more than 10mg/day for no more than 12 weeks, you should be fine haha.
 
ucimigrate said:
Guys, I am serious. I think we need to explore the cancer option, since Cardarine is a great chemical compound (especially when combined with Ostarine and maybe a pre-workout stimulant as mild as caffeine).

Beyond BroScience, we need to take care of our health.

Why did Cardarine cause cancer to spread so rapidly in rats, so predictably?

But, in humans, nothing that we can notice so far?
Click to expand...

I've talked about this extensively multiple times, so I'm not going to do it again, but I will say this. None of the studies using human cell lines resulted in cancer...and all showed some type of anti-cancer effects.

If one is trying to come to a conclusion about GW using only the available studies, then the answer is clear--GW is much more likely to PREVENT cancer (in multiple body systems) than to cause it.

Still, there are a lot of unknowns out there. More research is needed, but unlikely to happen. At this point GW has been in use by humans for about 10 years with no noted adverse effects, let alone cancer. However, there are some things we know that it does for sure, such as...

* Drastically improves the lipid profile; more than anything else currently in existence. In fact, it may be the most cardiovascularly beneficial compound currently available.

* Increased endurance.

* Increases the rate of fax oxidation.
 
Cgkone said:
I've actually switch to sr9009 because you scared the crap out of me
Click to expand...

I hope you're injecting it...because otherwise it's not working. SR9009 has about 2% oral bioavailability and about a 2-3 hour half-life, so unless you're injecting it you're wasting it. Even better, you should be injecting it in a carrier that prolongs absorption, thereby increasing its duration of action.
 
Mike Arnold said:
I hope you're injecting it...because otherwise it's not working. SR9009 has about 2% oral bioavailability and about a 2-3 hour half-life, so unless you're injecting it you're wasting it. Even better, you should be injecting it in a carrier that prolongs absorption, thereby increasing its duration of action.
Click to expand...
Just straight SR9009 sub q. 2mg. Only right now.. 2xs a day
 
Mike Arnold said:
I've talked about this extensively multiple times, so I'm not going to do it again, but I will say this. None of the studies using human cell lines resulted in cancer...and all showed some type of anti-cancer effects.

If one is trying to come to a conclusion about GW using only the available studies, then the answer is clear--GW is much more likely to PREVENT cancer (in multiple body systems) than to cause it.

Still, there are a lot of unknowns out there. More research is needed, but unlikely to happen. At this point GW has been in use by humans for about 10 years with no noted adverse effects, let alone cancer. However, there are some things we know that it does for sure, such as...

* Drastically improves the lipid profile; more than anything else currently in existence. In fact, it may be the most cardiovascularly beneficial compound currently available.

* Increased endurance.

* Increases the rate of fax oxidation.
Click to expand...
Its about time you showed up!!!!
In literally dying to hear muscleupcrohn respond.
Might even skip the gym just to read.
 
Mike Arnold said:
I hope you're injecting it...because otherwise it's not working. SR9009 has about 2% oral bioavailability and about a 2-3 hour half-life, so unless you're injecting it you're wasting it. Even better, you should be injecting it in a carrier that prolongs absorption, thereby increasing its duration of action.
Click to expand...
Sub q is cool?
 
Mike Arnold said:
I hope you're injecting it...because otherwise it's not working. SR9009 has about 2% oral bioavailability and about a 2-3 hour half-life, so unless you're injecting it you're wasting it. Even better, you should be injecting it in a carrier that prolongs absorption, thereby increasing its duration of action.
Click to expand...

Are you saying it's basically useless? Fatburning? Stamina? Nothing?
 
Mike Arnold said:
I've talked about this extensively multiple times, so I'm not going to do it again, but I will say this. None of the studies using human cell lines resulted in cancer...and all showed some type of anti-cancer effects.

If one is trying to come to a conclusion about GW using only the available studies, then the answer is clear--GW is much more likely to PREVENT cancer (in multiple body systems) than to cause it.

Still, there are a lot of unknowns out there. More research is needed, but unlikely to happen. At this point GW has been in use by humans for about 10 years with no noted adverse effects, let alone cancer. However, there are some things we know that it does for sure, such as...

* Drastically improves the lipid profile; more than anything else currently in existence. In fact, it may be the most cardiovascularly beneficial compound currently available.

* Increased endurance.

* Increases the rate of fax oxidation.
Click to expand...
We can’t come to any definitive conclusion; the authors of the in vitro studies explicitly state that there are inherent limitations of in vitro studies that prevent us from assuming/extrapolating that the same thing will occur in vivo, where there are many other types of cells and variables/systems/etc that can change the results. Honestly, it’s doubtful that we’ll ever get a definitive answer, as the developers have already moved on the the next thing. I respect you a lot man, but I disagree that it’s more likely to prevent cancer than to exacerbate it (as has been mentioned, there’s more research showing it increased the rate of cancer growth in the presence of other carcinogens than of it actually CAUSING cancer itself). We simply don’t know, and for this large of an unknown, it’s entirely logical why research was abandoned and why a lot of people stay away from it. To each their own though, but let’s not claim that there’s a consensus, or really anything close to that, that it prevents cancer.

TL;DR: I respect you and your opinion, but I vehemently disagree that it’s “clear” that the body of research leads to the conclusion that it’s more likely to prevent cancer than to increase its growth (it may not cause it though, it seems most of the research noted increased growth rate of cancer more than anything else really).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top