SarmsSearch GW-50 Log......................
- Thread starter jack3d4life
- Start date
PrinceDianabol
Well-known member
Weren't you just recommending gw50 to that 19yr old kid in another thread lol?
yah, didn't come across all the studies directly linking it to cancer until after I had already posted to him.
psizzle_8
New member
Why link to random info when I've made an info thread right here on ology?:
http://www.steroidology.com/forum/a...sarms-info-thread-hosted-sarmssearch-com.html
GW was said to cause cancer in rats when given extreme doses. Think about that. Rats. Extreme doses. When compared to a human, it came out to be in the 100s of mgs as daily dosages, and we only recommend taking 20mg TOPS per day...
GW is wonderful. Promotes cardio endurance, muscular endurance so you last longer with weights, and it's also known to burn fat. Perfection in my opinion
http://www.steroidology.com/forum/a...sarms-info-thread-hosted-sarmssearch-com.html
GW was said to cause cancer in rats when given extreme doses. Think about that. Rats. Extreme doses. When compared to a human, it came out to be in the 100s of mgs as daily dosages, and we only recommend taking 20mg TOPS per day...
GW is wonderful. Promotes cardio endurance, muscular endurance so you last longer with weights, and it's also known to burn fat. Perfection in my opinion
WOW. And so you qualify your findings (after previously recommending gw50) by saying "have fun getting cancer?" What about the other onslaught of supps you recommended to that 19yr old kid? Have you tried any of them? Per your recent finding, did you follow up with that kid and say "have fun getting cancer"? Or are you just copying and pasting stuff that looks like it might work? What a joke
PrinceDianabol
Well-known member
Ah righto that makes sense haha. Any studies in humans?
Hugh Jerection
New member
Actually, if you read the studies, a variety of cancers (in about 10 organ systems) were promoted AT ALL DOSES STUDIED, not just the high doses. The lowest dose studied translates to around 300-400mg per day in an avg sized male, but they stopped all research before finding the lower threshold. So no one really knows at what dose the cancer starts. In the only studies we have to look at, ALL DOSES CAUSED CANCER, and no studies were performed which looked at the equivalent to 20mg per day in humans.
I can't see any basis to believe that 20mg is safe. Perhaps you have access to more data?
Also, isn't it just a little bit self-serving to post rat studies to prove the drug burns fat and aids endurance, then turn around say "don't trust safety studies done on rats because they're rats and different than humans." ???
psizzle_8
New member
Until one of us run our own studies we will never know, and even then we will have conflicting info...same as some believing French fries give you cancer. We live in a hypochondriac society.
From the studies IVE read, here is what I gather. The doses they gave were ridiculously high. I'm talking like 5mg/kg bodyweight was the LOWEST. Do the math, that's a lot even for a small child.
I am sure quite a few things will give you cancer at 80+ times their normal dose.
If I'm not mistaken the size and frequency of cancer was also correlated with dosage, so assuming the correlation is linear at 5mg in a 50-100kg man, your risk is minimal. Also, based on the theory behind the ppar-Delta mechanism it seems that a COX2 inhibitor should prevent or at least reduce risk of cancer.
From the studies IVE read, here is what I gather. The doses they gave were ridiculously high. I'm talking like 5mg/kg bodyweight was the LOWEST. Do the math, that's a lot even for a small child.
I am sure quite a few things will give you cancer at 80+ times their normal dose.
If I'm not mistaken the size and frequency of cancer was also correlated with dosage, so assuming the correlation is linear at 5mg in a 50-100kg man, your risk is minimal. Also, based on the theory behind the ppar-Delta mechanism it seems that a COX2 inhibitor should prevent or at least reduce risk of cancer.
jack3d4life
Slave to the needle
Well dudes yesterday's workout once again was pretty intense. I can definitely see the difference in my muscular and cardiovascular endurance. The real test will be leg day when I hit squats. Which might be today or tomorrow. I'm not really sure yet. It's my birthday and I don't know if I'll be hitting the gym yet.
mr.bean
New member
How are you going to know what's working when on all those compounds?
Are you a rep for SarmSearch?
Last edited:
snowpatrol123
New member
Is that really you mr. bean???
psizzle_8
New member
Good deal!! Following along buddy
Right on my ninja. Are you noticing any change in your appetite with the addition of gw50? Does gw50 raise your RBC?
I'm sure you won't be short on ideas to celebrate being that you're in VEGAS! Tear it up, happy bday brother!
^^^^this. Seems like almost anything can cause cancer in some way shape or form.
In humans, any cancer causing agent is relevant (potentially cancer causing) only if the person has a genetic predisposition to cancer (I.e. the cancer gene). Any idea if the same is true in mice?
barnzy7
rome wasnt built in a day
Lol take a look at the studies of "side affects" of AAS
Optimal
New member
Of all the things said in this thread, this is what stood out most to me...
Just had to google image it.
LOL: http://www.schoolofbeinghealthy.com...eys-get-slim-by-experimental-drug-300x262.jpg
^^this.. somebody who doesn't follow the status quo on this website and thinks logically outside of the ology regime lol.
barnzy7
rome wasnt built in a day
If a study is done on booze, people given 30, 25, 20 shots in a night and they all end up in the hospital with alcohol poisoning, they stop the study, you cant jump to conclusion that any amount of alcohol will poison you. Is it wise to say its healthy at a low dose? maybe, maybe not, but we all know that studies are done with numbers that humans would NEVER ingest. Next time you run a compound, run the 40g a week they use in studies and see how that goes for you
Are you on other forums with a different handle?
Hugh Jerection
New member
Look, I don't care if people take risks as long as they're informed. I'm on record in another thread here about this product, so I'll just give my two cents one more time and then shut up.
My employment requires that I talk to oncologists about cancer pathways and treatments every day. I've been doing it for 14 years. I've read plenty of clinical research in that time, and enjoy reading about pipeline products, many of which never see approval, like GW50. I can't remember seeing one cause so much cancer in so many places. That's why the theories around PPAR agonism are based in part on tumor mediation generally, and not within specific organs. (there is also a hypothesis around epithelial cell disturbance, which may exist in some organs but not others).
The strong correlation between using this product and developing cancers throughout the body is what led GlaxoSmithKline to execute a PR campaign against the competitive use of GW50 even though they've never produced even one pill of it for sale. Why would they publicly link their brand to this product when they never even sought approval for it? In my opinion, its because they are trying to get out in front of any lawsuits that might arise from its illegal use.
Regarding the studies. The ones I have seen were for brief periods of time, usually 6-12 weeks. That's an incredibly short time period to elicit such robust tumor response. It's important to note what is NOT studied. Importantly, there was no long-term follow up, so we only know what happened within six weeks, and have no data for future occurrences.
Frequency or occurrences can be correlated to the types of cancers. In other words, one type might occur at 5mg/kg body weight, while another might appear at 10mg/kg. Meanwhile, some cancer types appeared at all dosages. These facts do not suggest a linear dose-related response. If you have more data on this, it would be helpful.
Once again, there is no consensus agreement on the mechanistic action of GW50. There is no consensus agreement on why PPAR-Delta agonism correlates to increased tumor proliferation. Hypothesizing that a COX2 inhibitor might prevent or reduce risk is speculatory.
All of us take risks with our health when using AAS. Each of us has the right to determine what level of risk is acceptable for us. I have no idea whether GW50 poses an increased lifetime cancer risk at 20mg a day. But then again, nobody else does either. I've looked at the available data on test, tren, deca, etc. and combine that with the years of human use experience and I think it is an acceptable risk. There is not a lot of data for GW50, but the available data that is there is extremely troubling. I believe it prudent to wait and see. In ten years, if the cyclists aren't filling up the chemo infusion centers, then I may consider it.
You may have a different opinion, and that's fine. I just want the board to see both sides.
My employment requires that I talk to oncologists about cancer pathways and treatments every day. I've been doing it for 14 years. I've read plenty of clinical research in that time, and enjoy reading about pipeline products, many of which never see approval, like GW50. I can't remember seeing one cause so much cancer in so many places. That's why the theories around PPAR agonism are based in part on tumor mediation generally, and not within specific organs. (there is also a hypothesis around epithelial cell disturbance, which may exist in some organs but not others).
The strong correlation between using this product and developing cancers throughout the body is what led GlaxoSmithKline to execute a PR campaign against the competitive use of GW50 even though they've never produced even one pill of it for sale. Why would they publicly link their brand to this product when they never even sought approval for it? In my opinion, its because they are trying to get out in front of any lawsuits that might arise from its illegal use.
Regarding the studies. The ones I have seen were for brief periods of time, usually 6-12 weeks. That's an incredibly short time period to elicit such robust tumor response. It's important to note what is NOT studied. Importantly, there was no long-term follow up, so we only know what happened within six weeks, and have no data for future occurrences.
I have not seen any data on "size," can you share this?
Frequency or occurrences can be correlated to the types of cancers. In other words, one type might occur at 5mg/kg body weight, while another might appear at 10mg/kg. Meanwhile, some cancer types appeared at all dosages. These facts do not suggest a linear dose-related response. If you have more data on this, it would be helpful.
Once again, there is no consensus agreement on the mechanistic action of GW50. There is no consensus agreement on why PPAR-Delta agonism correlates to increased tumor proliferation. Hypothesizing that a COX2 inhibitor might prevent or reduce risk is speculatory.
All of us take risks with our health when using AAS. Each of us has the right to determine what level of risk is acceptable for us. I have no idea whether GW50 poses an increased lifetime cancer risk at 20mg a day. But then again, nobody else does either. I've looked at the available data on test, tren, deca, etc. and combine that with the years of human use experience and I think it is an acceptable risk. There is not a lot of data for GW50, but the available data that is there is extremely troubling. I believe it prudent to wait and see. In ten years, if the cyclists aren't filling up the chemo infusion centers, then I may consider it.
You may have a different opinion, and that's fine. I just want the board to see both sides.
Similar threads
