Exercise in a Pill
- Thread starter guambomb
- Start date
Cobra Strike
New member
wtf you cant be serious....exercise in a pill....ya nope
this is for lazy ass fuckin people that cant get off their dam couch and go to the gym so they buy into this pipe dream of here lets eat pizza pockets and watch tv while we pop exercise in a pill...
sorry for being rude but Im in a bad fuckin mood
this is for lazy ass fuckin people that cant get off their dam couch and go to the gym so they buy into this pipe dream of here lets eat pizza pockets and watch tv while we pop exercise in a pill...
sorry for being rude but Im in a bad fuckin mood
Cobra Strike
New member
I know competitive cyclist who tried this multiple times with zero results. I forget the mechanisms behind it and don't care to read it right now but the experiences that I saw, male and female, it did not work and did not help with endurance but I have no personal experience with it.
Stick with shake weights and that ab belt thing you plug in the wall
Stick with shake weights and that ab belt thing you plug in the wall
These are no different than a strength trainer using AAS to gain an edge, it's all about getting the most bang for your buck.
GW1516 only produces an effect if you train while taking it, while AICAR has an effect whether you exercise while on it or not. The two have been shown to work synergistically.
Caution needs to be taken if thinking about GW1516 in particular. Numerous studies have linked it to causing cancer, while other studies have shown it doesn't. So the jury's very much still out on this one. Lots of research being done on it at the moment though, so hopefully in the next few years there'll be a definitive answer.
Also, if you're a strength/power athlete, GW1516 converts fast-twitch muscle to slow-twitch muscle, which is great for endurance athletes, but not so great if you're a rugby player / american footballer / sprinter / lifter, etc.
I'm pretty interested in the two compounds, but am hanging back until clearer info comes out regarding them, in terms of dosages and their danger.
GW1516 only produces an effect if you train while taking it, while AICAR has an effect whether you exercise while on it or not. The two have been shown to work synergistically.
Caution needs to be taken if thinking about GW1516 in particular. Numerous studies have linked it to causing cancer, while other studies have shown it doesn't. So the jury's very much still out on this one. Lots of research being done on it at the moment though, so hopefully in the next few years there'll be a definitive answer.
Also, if you're a strength/power athlete, GW1516 converts fast-twitch muscle to slow-twitch muscle, which is great for endurance athletes, but not so great if you're a rugby player / american footballer / sprinter / lifter, etc.
I'm pretty interested in the two compounds, but am hanging back until clearer info comes out regarding them, in terms of dosages and their danger.
I'm referring to research on human cell lines in vitro, whereby GW1516 has been shown to promote certain cancer types, and hinder others. There however is a review article that that brings some doubt to the cancer-promoting effects, saying that a lot of the science is flawed, but even it urges caution in future human use. The majority of recent (post-2009) studies implicate it in some form of carcinogenic effect. Search PubMed and Elsevier to confirm this.
One of my main concerns is that the vast majority of the articles saying that it has no cancer-inducing effect have been done by researchers with affiliations to GlaxoSmithkline, and that company is notorious for hiding bad findings concerning drugs they have in development. And GW1516 is a GSK drug, currently in phase 3 trials with them. They call it GW501516.
Having said all this, I am still quite interested in this drug, and in time hope to add it to my training regime. But until things become less hazy regarding its safety, I'm going to sit on my hands. It must be noted though, that there are no such safety concerns regarding AICAR.
One of my main concerns is that the vast majority of the articles saying that it has no cancer-inducing effect have been done by researchers with affiliations to GlaxoSmithkline, and that company is notorious for hiding bad findings concerning drugs they have in development. And GW1516 is a GSK drug, currently in phase 3 trials with them. They call it GW501516.
Having said all this, I am still quite interested in this drug, and in time hope to add it to my training regime. But until things become less hazy regarding its safety, I'm going to sit on my hands. It must be noted though, that there are no such safety concerns regarding AICAR.
guambomb
Disciplined & Consistent
you are the man. thanks for all that information. more helpful than you know. i feel like im always gonna be a newbie, so i appreciate the point in the right direction of where to start my research on these compounds.
No worries, am a newbie myself in many of these chems. Researched these 2 chemicals a helluva lot, came very close to giving them a go a few months ago.
What stopped me was the stuff I've mentioned above, and that there are no guidelines regarding effective dosing in humans. That's probably why UserAt204's cyclist friend had no results, no-one has a clue about human dosing, only what's been shown to be effective in rats. The GSK medical-trials used up to 10 units (cant remember if it's mcg or mg's, but that you can find that out on the GSK website) of GW.
What stopped me was the stuff I've mentioned above, and that there are no guidelines regarding effective dosing in humans. That's probably why UserAt204's cyclist friend had no results, no-one has a clue about human dosing, only what's been shown to be effective in rats. The GSK medical-trials used up to 10 units (cant remember if it's mcg or mg's, but that you can find that out on the GSK website) of GW.
In vitro is a whole lot different than human use fellas. Look around the net for personal experience. I have read all kinds of scientific reviews on how it could work but from people I know who used them solo and in combination, they did not notice any difference. Check out some of the research chem sites that have blogs as well, I'm betting that you will be highly dissapointed to see that it has been less than exciting when used in humans.
Yes in vitro is often different to actual in vivo studies, but these test tube studies involved human cells, and carcinogenic responses were certainly observed. It should be noted though that in vitro and in vivo studies very often show the same results, and that is why researchers consider both to be very handy tools. That's enough to make me cautious.
These conclusions re the cancer-promoting effects are dicey though, as the main review paper on the current state of GW1516 research says that the science in the pro-carcinogenic studies has numerous flaws. I'll see if I can dig up this review paper.
I've also seen the dosages that guys are using out there. Most often they're in the range of the GSK human clinical trial amounts. I haven't done the math, but it's unlikely that these amounts directly correspond to what was used on the rats, etc. There are formulas out there for converting rodent/canine/primate dosages to human dosages, and it doesn't work on a straight bodyweight conversion. So I speculate that humans out there are dosing waaaay off what's required, possibly even whole orders of magnitude down from what's required. So I wouldn't say straight off that they 'just don't work.' More info is needed to make them work.
That's pretty much why I've held off trying it out: the cancer thing, and the absolute lack of clarity on necessary dosages.
These conclusions re the cancer-promoting effects are dicey though, as the main review paper on the current state of GW1516 research says that the science in the pro-carcinogenic studies has numerous flaws. I'll see if I can dig up this review paper.
I've also seen the dosages that guys are using out there. Most often they're in the range of the GSK human clinical trial amounts. I haven't done the math, but it's unlikely that these amounts directly correspond to what was used on the rats, etc. There are formulas out there for converting rodent/canine/primate dosages to human dosages, and it doesn't work on a straight bodyweight conversion. So I speculate that humans out there are dosing waaaay off what's required, possibly even whole orders of magnitude down from what's required. So I wouldn't say straight off that they 'just don't work.' More info is needed to make them work.
That's pretty much why I've held off trying it out: the cancer thing, and the absolute lack of clarity on necessary dosages.
Last edited:
Cobra Strike
New member
haha this is a steroid forum is it not??? I dont think this shit is even a prohormone but I may be wrong...and if I am I dont give a shit because its junk anyway.
sounds like an as seen on tv ad...
not trying to bash bros but come on now
sounds like an as seen on tv ad...
not trying to bash bros but come on now
juced_porkchop
Moderator
Ill post up some info on it soon.
anyway if your looking for any for studys they got it here:
anyway if your looking for any for studys they got it here:
Last edited by a moderator:
Toolshed23
I GOT BLISTAZ ON ME FINGA
I looked at the like you posted guambomb, and it says it can protect against weight gain on high fat diet, and that sounds good, but isn't to high carbs the culprit for majority of weight gain? Especially for those who don't exercise.
guambomb
Disciplined & Consistent
the reason it has potential to prevent weight gain in humans is due to higher proportion of Type 1 muscle fibers. These are the kind with lots of myoglobin (protein that stores extra oxygen) and carries out the highly active metabolic process known as oxidative phosphorylation. This is opposed to the Type 2 fibers wherein they must go through glycolysis as their primary form of ATP production (with lots of lactic acid metabolites).
In effect, the theory is that it doesn't matter where the glucose comes from (beit from carbohydrate sources, or from beta-oxidation of lipids), because you will be able to burn more without creating an overly acidic environment (as would occur in lactic acid production from Type 2 muscle fibers). Also keep in mind that Type 1 fibers are found in muscles that are constitutively active, such as those in postural muscles alongside the spine; which accounts for their greater endurance before fatigue.
i think the theory behind this is that glucose (from carb sources) are getting burned primarily. Then, due to the high metabolic demand of these fibers, fat must be used to feed them, which would promote lipolysis (breakdown of fat). This allows one to eat high-fat meals without the consequences of storing excess calories in adipose tissue.
And keep in mind that insulin will facilitate entry of glucose into adipocytes as well (so despite high carb diet, this is how you gain fat), so if you eat a high carb diet, it is akin (not "atkin's) to eating a high fat diet after glycogen storage granules have been maxed out in skeletal muscle and liver.
In effect, the theory is that it doesn't matter where the glucose comes from (beit from carbohydrate sources, or from beta-oxidation of lipids), because you will be able to burn more without creating an overly acidic environment (as would occur in lactic acid production from Type 2 muscle fibers). Also keep in mind that Type 1 fibers are found in muscles that are constitutively active, such as those in postural muscles alongside the spine; which accounts for their greater endurance before fatigue.
i think the theory behind this is that glucose (from carb sources) are getting burned primarily. Then, due to the high metabolic demand of these fibers, fat must be used to feed them, which would promote lipolysis (breakdown of fat). This allows one to eat high-fat meals without the consequences of storing excess calories in adipose tissue.
And keep in mind that insulin will facilitate entry of glucose into adipocytes as well (so despite high carb diet, this is how you gain fat), so if you eat a high carb diet, it is akin (not "atkin's) to eating a high fat diet after glycogen storage granules have been maxed out in skeletal muscle and liver.
Last edited:
juced_porkchop
Moderator
yes but usually people eat/drink too much sugar and that get them fat. i dotn know ANYONE thats fat and eats low carbs high protien and fat diet.
nto saying it isnt possible as ofcourse it is. too high of cals per day WILL end up putting fat on you.
but high carbs will do it the worst/fastest.
Similar threads
