I appreciate all the contributions to the thread. The discussion here has definitely given me some pause as to my previous position on GW. I'd love to see more educated opinions. It is pretty clear to me that Dante and Stewie both feel the risk/reward ratio is off even though there is agreement that the rat doses are much higher. However, after HED conversion, the doses studied are just a little too close to what people are actually using.
What has allowed myself (and I assume others) to validate
trying GW was the fact that is has always been stated (and shown by several studies) that the rat model doses showing cancer in multiple organs used high doses per body weight compared to what humans would ingest. One study showed tumors at all doses but again these are much higher than what we would take. This approach to dispelling fears of its carcinogenic nature is what many have used to promote GW. Most who do this tend to have some connection back to the promotion of GW as well. I have seen some argue that mega doses of "anything" (i.e. benign vitamins or minerals) can be bad for you and this is somehow analogous here. This is a bit of a fallacy when we are talking about a carcinogen though. Do we really want any level/dose of a 100% undeniable known carcinogen introduced into our system?
I think we all agree that the doses used in the rat models is significantly higher than a 5-10mg/daily dose used in humans. That said, I also think we can all agree that there is little doubt that this compound is truly cancer promoting (direct formation of neoplasms, etc.) at certain dose thresholds.
We just don't really know what that dose is in humans. And do we really want to ingest a compound that does this even in small dosages? I have seen some suggest the concept that GW could only accelerate existing cancer, like GH or other growth factors could be argued to do. I also think this is bad logic.
The studies indicate this compound triggers the precise mechanisms that lead to direct tumor growth (unchecked cell/tissue growth, proliferation of cells themselves and tumorigenesis). This makes it much different than GH accelerating the growth of already cancerous cells.
Can anyone think of another food additive, PED or health supplement that we take which is "ok" in normal dosages but a direct carcinogen at some unknown dose threshold? Maybe saccharine? (food/drink container leeching from BPA, Styrene... DDT...) I mean, I am approaching this with an open mind but its harder to validate playing with GW for fat loss when there are other compounds that do it so well and aren't directly carcinogenic (dare I say, even DNP?). I just dont think anyone should create any false sense of security or illusion in regard to GW just because the rat models used higher doses. Almost all rat model studies like this end up using a higher dose per body weight. You have to get it in your head that GW is an identified carcinogen before you can accurately assess whether you want to use it or not. I think somehow some people arent doing this.
This is actually a Pro-GW write-up which attempts to point out why the cancer risk is not valid if you want a counter position.
GW-501516 (Cardarine) and Cancer - A Scientific Review - Evolutionary.org It should be noted Sarms1 (who sells GW) is a heavy advertiser linked up with Evolutionary. Most sources putting out this kind of "information" all link back to selling the compound.
.gif "IP Gear")
), and DMBA treatment alone produced squamous cell hyperplasia of the forestomach without signs of dysplasia (Figures 2(A) and 2"
