• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
intex
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
PM-Ace-Labs
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
sunrise2
PHARMAHGH1
kinglab
ganabol2
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
azteca
granabolic1
napsgear-210x65
esquel
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
1-SWEDISH-PEPTIDE-CO
YMSApril21065
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
advertise1
tjk
advertise1
advertise1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

HDL up with GW-501516 (Cardarine)

You know what's wrong with today's so-called experts. They can't even equate a fucking HED properly!!!

I stopped at this paragraph:

"The study, that is so often referred to, subjected rats to supraphysiological dosages of 10mg/kg of body, or to put that in perspective, a 200lb man (roughly 90 kg) dosing around 900mgs of GW-501516 per day.

Moronic pseudoscientist are the laughing stock of today's bodybuilding sites!

There was a new study I came across from 2016a metanalysis supporting GW in that it didn't promote cancer but I could only reads brief abstract couldn't access entire study to see why. I see other studies showing GW treating cancer as well so it still up in the air to me.
 
There was a new study I came across from 2016a metanalysis supporting GW in that it didn't promote cancer but I could only reads brief abstract couldn't access entire study to see why. I see other studies showing GW treating cancer as well so it still up in the air to me.

think seen it on researchgate I try find it
 
The tox studies referenced on Wiki were done by Glaxo and don't mention any use of carcinogens. Other studies may have used DMBA or phorbol to initiate tumors but these don't.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

oh ok I would have to review the Glaxo full study and see their methods.
 
There was a new study I came across from 2016a metanalysis supporting GW in that it didn't promote cancer but I could only reads brief abstract couldn't access entire study to see why. I see other studies showing GW treating cancer as well so it still up in the air to me.
None of this is to imply that GW is carcinogenic in humans, just that some studies have shown this effect in animals. Sodium saccharin showed carcinogenicity in rats and it was decades later that it was proven that this effect was species specific. The rats developed bladder tumors from various sodium salts, even sodium ascorbate.

Regardless, a pharmaceutical company will quickly drop a compound that shows carcinogenicity in preliminary studiea cause the litigation risk is too high.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
 
Since I've had a little more time on my hands as of late, I've browsed through some of the blog posts by several different individuals. Some of these individuals have given a bunch of regurgitation of what someone else has already stated. Copycat plagiarism, if you will. On the other hand, there has been a few individuals that without citations have proclaimed that the rodent models where engineered rodents that are programmed (lack of better terms) to develop cancer. Possibly not an adjuvant such as that of a tumor initiator DMBA (7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene)?


If I find the time, I'll try to engage more into this through Medline searches.


Nevertheless. It's always best to error on the side of caution.

The mice in one Glaxo study were FVB mice those are engineered from my understanding, but I don't necessarily believe their engineered to develop cancer. The DMBA studies versus non DMBA would interest me.
 
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 also think this is 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.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.

That was me, I was being a bit facetious with comparing it to GH, but I see many here taking PGE 2 , but would compare GW more to PGE 2 in that both appear to share similarities in possibly promoting intestinal tumorigenesis.
 
The mice in one Glaxo study were FVB mice those are engineered from my understanding, but I don't necessarily believe their engineered to develop cancer. The DMBA studies versus non DMBA would interest me.
I don't think the negative GlaxoSmithKline studies administered DMBA. Some of the others did though.
 
I don't think the negative GlaxoSmithKline studies administered DMBA. Some of the others did though.

I started reading the methods section. There are 3 studies and only seen they used engineered mice so far, but alot studies use those same mice thats what they are for. Im trying see if Glaxo used any DMBA or anything similar in any of thier research.
 
The human equvilant dose is a simple configuration. I haven't looked at the rodent models dosage. If someone has it, I'll do the math.



Who's to say that the biological processes of PPAR delta mouse models equates to the same with human PPAR delta?

Most studies that are preformed in rodents are knockout models. In this case, I'm suspecting they're lacking ligand binding domain of PPAR delta? And an adjuvant too stimulate tumorigenesis?

Not only that. I've always questioned, is the Krebs cycle of a rodent viable too that of human PPAR delta via activation of fatty acids and fatty acid derivatives, ect?

Too many unanswered questions.


I think some of it was performed on bunnies too:)
Really though, I was gonna go over some of that info, but I haven't had the time.

I was looking for a dog and reviewed some of their life expectancies. The simple thought came to me: do these animals have the same temporality as humans? I know that it's a superficial thing to ask, but the clock-work has a lot to consider as well. These measurement conversions are mostly relative to body area, etc.
 
Doesn't aspartame cause cancer in mice in high doses as well? Seems like mice gwt cancer from a number of substances in high doses. I don't think there was ever a link to aspartame and cancer in humans however.
 
Aspartame

When injested by some folks its has the abilities to become poison. Bad for the heart and eyesight
 
Doesn't aspartame cause cancer in mice in high doses as well? Seems like mice gwt cancer from a number of substances in high doses. I don't think there was ever a link to aspartame and cancer in humans however.
I think that was saccharin studies. Starting in the 1970s, saccharin carried a warning about causing cancer in lab animals. By 2000, those warnings were removed when FDA accepted the well-established understanding that this concern was limited to rodents.

Aspartame has almost entirely replaced saccharin use now by most companies.
 
Last edited:
Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2011 Dec; 30(3-4): 619–640.doi: 10.1007/s10555-011-9320-1
PMCID: PMC3237866
NIHMSID: NIHMS341132
Dissecting the role of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) in colon, breast, and lung carcinogenesis
Jeffrey M. Peters,corresponding author Jennifer E. Foreman, and Frank J. Gonzalez

Abstract

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) is a promising drug target since its agonists increase serum high-density lipoprotein; decrease low-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, and insulin associated with metabolic syndrome; improve insulin sensitivity; and decrease high fat diet-induced obesity. PPARβ/δ agonists also promote terminal differentiation and elicit anti-inflammatory activities in many cell types. However, it remains to be determined whether PPARβ/δ agonists can be developed as therapeutics because there are reports showing either pro- or anti-carcinogenic effects of PPARβ/δ in cancer models. This review examines studies reporting the role of PPARβ/δ in colon, breast, and lung cancers. The prevailing evidence would suggest that targeting PPARβ/δ is not only safe but could have anti-carcinogenic protective effects.

Dissecting the role of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-?/? (PPAR?/?) in colon, breast, and lung carcinogenesis


I found an updated article 2015 on how PPARδ ligand inhibits tumor growth and in some promote it depending on the siRNA expressions, but got lost when they started talking about LPS-induced HMGB1 release, so Stewie might need to interpret the study. Anyways it was talking about how future PPAR will be developed that none of this will be a concern.
 
60mg is the dose that cause cancer in humans
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20160608-140103.jpg
    Screenshot_20160608-140103.jpg
    130.6 KB · Views: 675
60mg is the dose that cause cancer in humans

This is a human equvilant dose chart. This has nothing to do with GW on the autonomous of tumorigenesis.
 
Last edited:
The chart above is not based on sound science and is not reliable.

The BSA method for determining animal to human dosage conversion has many flaws, and as the following article states, "Although BSA conversion equations have been used in certain clinical applications for decades, recent recommendations to use BSA to derive interspecies equivalents for therapeutic dosages of drug and natural products are inappropriate."


Translating dosages from animal models to human clinical trials?revisiting body surface area scaling


Translating dosages from animal models to human clinical trials—revisiting body surface area scaling

Otis L. Blanchard* and James M. Smoliga†,‡,1

+
Author Affiliations

*Wilmore Labs Limited Liability Company, San Antonio, Texas, USA; and †Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, and ‡Department of Basic Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, High Point University, High Point, North Carolina, USA

↵1Correspondence: Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, High Point University, 833 Montlieu Ave., High Point, NC 27409, USA. E-mail: [email protected]


Next Section
Abstract

Body surface area (BSA) scaling has been used for prescribing individualized dosages of various drugs and has also been recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as one method for using data from animal model species to establish safe starting dosages for first-in-human clinical trials. Although BSA conversion equations have been used in certain clinical applications for decades, recent recommendations to use BSA to derive interspecies equivalents for therapeutic dosages of drug and natural products are inappropriate. A thorough review of the literature reveals that BSA conversions are based on antiquated science and have little justification in current translational medicine compared to more advanced allometric and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling. Misunderstood and misinterpreted use of BSA conversions may have disastrous consequences, including underdosing leading to abandonment of potentially efficacious investigational drugs, and unexpected deadly adverse events. We aim to demonstrate that recent recommendations for BSA are not appropriate for animal-to-human dosage conversions and use pharmacokinetic data from resveratrol studies to demonstrate how confusion between the “human equivalent dose” and “pharmacologically active dose” can lead to inappropriate dose recommendations. To optimize drug development, future recommendations for interspecies scaling must be scientifically justified using physiologic, pharmacokinetic, and toxicology data rather than simple BSA conversion.—Blanchard, O. L., Smoliga, J. M. Translating dosages from animal models to human clinical trials—revisiting body surface area scaling.
 
The chart above is not based on sound science and is not reliable.

The BSA method for determining animal to human dosage conversion has many flaws, and as the following article states, "Although BSA conversion equations have been used in certain clinical applications for decades, recent recommendations to use BSA to derive interspecies equivalents for therapeutic dosages of drug and natural products are inappropriate."


Translating dosages from animal models to human clinical trials?revisiting body surface area scaling


Translating dosages from animal models to human clinical trials—revisiting body surface area scaling

Otis L. Blanchard* and James M. Smoliga†,‡,1

+
Author Affiliations

*Wilmore Labs Limited Liability Company, San Antonio, Texas, USA; and †Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, and ‡Department of Basic Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, High Point University, High Point, North Carolina, USA

↵1Correspondence: Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, High Point University, 833 Montlieu Ave., High Point, NC 27409, USA. E-mail: [email protected]


Next Section
Abstract

Body surface area (BSA) scaling has been used for prescribing individualized dosages of various drugs and has also been recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as one method for using data from animal model species to establish safe starting dosages for first-in-human clinical trials. Although BSA conversion equations have been used in certain clinical applications for decades, recent recommendations to use BSA to derive interspecies equivalents for therapeutic dosages of drug and natural products are inappropriate. A thorough review of the literature reveals that BSA conversions are based on antiquated science and have little justification in current translational medicine compared to more advanced allometric and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling. Misunderstood and misinterpreted use of BSA conversions may have disastrous consequences, including underdosing leading to abandonment of potentially efficacious investigational drugs, and unexpected deadly adverse events. We aim to demonstrate that recent recommendations for BSA are not appropriate for animal-to-human dosage conversions and use pharmacokinetic data from resveratrol studies to demonstrate how confusion between the “human equivalent dose” and “pharmacologically active dose” can lead to inappropriate dose recommendations. To optimize drug development, future recommendations for interspecies scaling must be scientifically justified using physiologic, pharmacokinetic, and toxicology data rather than simple BSA conversion.—Blanchard, O. L., Smoliga, J. M. Translating dosages from animal models to human clinical trials—revisiting body surface area scaling.

Allometric scaling of human equivalent dose (HED) can come with consequence. This is one of many reasons why there's over two dozen clinic trials preformed before launching an approved drug.

The formulation of HED today is still used as it was many years ago.

This is the most recent data:
A simple practice guide for dose conversion between animals and human
The dose by factor method is an empirical approach and use the no observed adverse effect levels (NOAEL) of drug from preclinical toxicological studies to estimate human equivalent dose (HED).[2] Here, the dose selection is based on minimum risk of toxicity, instead of choosing one with minimum pharmacologic activity in humans.


Conclusion
Dose estimation always requires careful consideration about the difference in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics among species. Allometric scaling assists scientists to exchange doses between species during research, experiments, and clinical trials. Different equations described in this review could be used for dose extrapolation among species. Allometric scaling is generally used to convert doses among the species and is not preferred within species.
 
So what's the verdict? Cancer not possible unless your using insane dosing like 900mg?
 

Staff online

  • Big A
    IFBB PRO/NPC JUDGE/Administrator
  • LATS
    Moderator / FOUNDING Member / NPC Judge

Forum statistics

Total page views
559,515,170
Threads
136,123
Messages
2,780,170
Members
160,444
Latest member
Deecrume
NapsGear
HGH Power Store email banner
your-raws
Prowrist straps store banner
infinity
FLASHING-BOTTOM-BANNER-210x131
raws
Savage Labs Store email
Syntherol Site Enhancing Oil Synthol
aqpharma
YMSApril210131
hulabs
ezgif-com-resize-2-1
MA Research Chem store banner
MA Supps Store Banner
volartek
Keytech banner
musclechem
Godbullraw-bottom-banner
Injection Instructions for beginners
Knight Labs store email banner
3
ashp131
YMS-210x131-V02
Back
Top