Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 27 of 27
  1. #1
    maximized is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    145

    gene altering better than steroids..

    you guys ever heard of gene altering? I just read an article on it about a week ago. Pretty crazy! Basically, they inject a harmless virus into you that attacks the gene. the genes fight it off but in the process change somehow so that you build better bigger muscle mass / strength very easily i guess it would just be easy forever and not like roids where you get big gains when on but in your in between cycle, you dont make them as fast.. there of course aren't any long term side effects known yet... and with the technology we have now, its virtually undetectable. they have to take a muscle fiber out and even then they said it would be like finding a needle in a hay stack. they compared it to something like a non user with bi's 18inch would be same as a juiced bi's at like 23inches would be the same as a gene altered at like 27inches. or around those numbers. pretty crazy! its amazing.
    well, take care. if you want me to post the article or exerpts, let me know..


    -max

  2. #2
    XBiker's Avatar
    XBiker is offline Retired Vet
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Over there.
    Posts
    1,391
    You are talking viral induced changing to the genetic code.

    Scary stuff, there is no telling what it can/would do to a person's genetic fingerprint.

  3. #3
    GenuinePL's Avatar
    GenuinePL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    1,693
    That's some scary shit, my son might be able to use it in 20 years if that works. LOL

    I hope that the only side effect are that:
    YOU WILL BE ABLE TO F*CK FOR 2 HOURS STRAIGHT AS AN CARDIO EXERCISE, LOL

  4. #4
    arthurb999's Avatar
    arthurb999 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,715
    Sounds like the episode of star trek I just watched today on TNN. The virus transposed something in your genes that made you age quicker!

  5. #5
    landshark's Avatar
    landshark is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    flying overhead in my fina-jet...
    Posts
    431
    Post the article, bro...I'm interested in shit like this...

  6. #6
    vanjag is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    93
    Please post the article, I don't believe that can be done in adult humans, because then you'd have to have a myotropic virus whose genome can be altered.

    V

  7. #7
    Iwan2bsolid2's Avatar
    Iwan2bsolid2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    So-Cal
    Posts
    1,743

    Talking hey I wouldn't mind if it made my second head grow

    SOLID

  8. #8
    PaPaPumP's Avatar
    PaPaPumP is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Outside your bedroom wind
    Posts
    4,470

    Thumbs up I've read this as well....GREAT POST!

    Originally posted by maximized
    there of course aren't any long term side effects known yet...


    -max

    Ya, execpt the virus that is induced into the gene can 'forget' to turn itself off... . That means you will never stop growing, EVER, and there is pretty much nothing they can do to stop it. So you may be the first BB with 40" arms....it may sound good, but when you just keep growing, and growing, and growing...it might be a little too much to handle. Unless they can find a way to turn the damn thing off manually, I'll have my bottle of test and EQ please.....

  9. #9
    GenuinePL's Avatar
    GenuinePL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    1,693
    HEHE that's a good one PPP

  10. #10
    nautica's Avatar
    nautica is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Krypton
    Posts
    209
    That is some scary shit. Where can I get some.

  11. #11
    nautica's Avatar
    nautica is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Krypton
    Posts
    209
    Bump. I want to see the article. It is amazing what freaks like us are interested in.

    40" arms that sounds good to me. Maybe I can get my penis up to 6" too.

  12. #12
    GenuinePL's Avatar
    GenuinePL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    1,693
    Originally posted by nautica
    Bump. I want to see the article. It is amazing what freaks like us are interested in.

    40" arms that sounds good to me. Maybe I can get my penis up to 6" too.
    That's a good one. hehe

  13. #13
    Mr. Nobody is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    191
    Myostatin

    "The transformation of bodybuilding has been amazing in recent years. When comparing bodybuilders from earlier days with the bodybuilders of the last decade we are amazed at the changes. What was once considered huge is new considered mediocre. This change can be contributed to a number of factors, including scientific nutrition, smarter training, hormone manipulation and a better understanding of rest-recovery. Recently a discovery has been made that could possibly take muscular growth to a higher level.

    In 1997 McPherron and Lee from John Hopkins University discovered a gene that could be responsible for abnormal muscular growth in cattle. It is called the myostatin gene ( nickname" Schwarzenegger Gene"). The gene produces a protein called myostatin that regulates muscular growth. Experiments where the genes were mutated in Belgian Blue and Piedmontse cattle led to increased muscularity. Gains of up to 30% above normal levels of muscularity have been shown in cattle that experienced myostatin mutations.

    Shortly after the discovery of the myostatin gene in cattle the gene was discovered in mice. Mutation of the gene in mice resulted in 200-300% increases in muscle mass. The studies showed us that myostatin had the same biological function in cattle and mice. These discoveries led to further investigations of the myostatin gene. Scientists have discovered the gene in other vertebra animals including pigs, chickens, turkeys and humans.
    Recent reports state that KFC is working on producing larger chickens through myostatin mutation. Sources also say that McDonald's is working on a supercow that is six times larger than normal cows. These reports are purely speculation; they are not official at this time.

    Myostatin belongs to a family of molecules called transforming growth factors beta (TGF-b). It is also called ( GDF-8 ) growth and differentiation factor - 8. TGFb subtypes are based on their related structures. GL)F is one of these structures which specifically regulates growth and differentiation. In the beginning researchers thought myostatin was present only in skeletal muscle. Since then, a New Zealand team of researchers detected myostatin in cardiac muscle. Research at Purdue University detected the myostatin gene in lactating mammary glands of pigs.

    Myostatin plays a role in prenatal muscular growth. At this time we have little knowledge of myostatin's role in muscle regeneration. The process of muscle regeneration is a complex situation. In young animals hormones and growth factors are likely to induce growth. As animals become adults these factors become down regulated. The muscles ability to express protein synthesis is lessened.

    MyoD, IGF-I and myogenin are factors in determining a muscle cells specific characteristics. Muscle regulatory factor 4 ( MRF-4 ) mRNA expression is the dominant factor in adult muscular growth. As you can see in addition to myostatin there are other factors involved in the regulation of muscle.

    At this time little research has been performed on human models. Although the research that has been done shows that myostatin works basically the same in humans as it does in animals.

    Studies indicate myostatin may control muscle fiber type.

    Research also shows that altering the bodies metabolism has no effect on myostatin expression. Studies done on piglets and mice show that food restriction as well as administration of exogenous growth hormone did not effect myostatin levels. These studies suggest that myostatin expression is largely associated with prenatal muscular growth.

    High levels of myostatin have been detected in HIV-infected men in comparison to healthy males. This does not necessarily mean that myostatin is a factor in muscle wasting. At the present time we can not be sure of myostatin's role in muscle regulation. Several authors suggest that myostatin plays a larger role in muscle regeneration after injury. One study reported that mutations in the human myostatin gene did not play a role in altering muscle mass in weight trained subjects.

    How does myostatin apply to bodybuilding? This topic has been mentioned by various authorities in the bodybuilding industry. Mauro Dipasquale stated in a interview with Testosterone magazine that myostatin could be the wave of the future. Dan Duchaine and Bill Roberts also stated that myostatin inhibition could take top level physiques to an even higher level.
    Further research needs to be done with humans before we fully understand myostatin's role in human muscle. Some of the research done on animals looks very promising, but we are not animals. The biggest problem facing myostatin research at this time is funding for this type of research.
    Federal funding is unlikely for performance enhancement research. Scientists believe it is possible that inhibition of myostatin could possibly help in treating muscle wasting diseases. If this theory proves reliable it is possible that federal authorities would support myostatin research for medical purposes.

    In conclusion, myostatin presents great possibilities, but at this time we do not have sufficient evidence to determine myostatin's role in humans."


    more:
    http://www.wlu.edu/~hblackme/biology/myostatin.html
    http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press...ULY/010717.htm
    Last edited by Mr. Nobody; 11-29-2001 at 02:02 PM.

  14. #14
    primodonna is offline Female Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,149

    Re: Re: gene altering better than steroids..

    Originally posted by EXCESS


    We'll probably find out that it causes the growth of a second head. Oh wait, didn't that already happen to Primo?
    would you care to elaborate?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,145
    Quote Originally Posted by vanjag
    Please post the article, I don't believe that can be done in adult humans, because then you'd have to have a myotropic virus whose genome can be altered.

    V
    Adenovirus vectors are myotropic and are frequently used as gene therapy vectors in trials. Also, Coxsackie virus is myotropic but would require attenuation.
    As for not being able to turn it off...this is true...UNLESS they design the virus to replace the promoter of the myostatin gene to a promoter that can be regulated exogenously, e.g. a lactose promoter. Therefore, when the body is supplied with lactose, the gene will be expressed. A better strategy would be to introduce a DNA segment (pseudogene) that will encode a protein which will bind myostatin or one that will occupy the myostatin binding site(s), thus rendering myostatin inactive. This pseudogene would be under the control of a promoter which would be inducible by something not plentifully found in the body. Then when you introduce the promoting substance, the myostatin inhibitor will be expressed. You have an on/off switch, in essence.
    If you think thats crazy, you'll be surprised to know that both silk and insulin , among many other proteins, were produced by dairy cattle by inserting their respective genes accompanied by lactose promoters in dairy cattle so that their milk would contain large quantities of either insulin or silk. E. coli is a much easier way of mass producing most any protein these days, but the dairy cattle thing was pretty clever.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,145
    I posted this on another board, MC, but it applies here too. If you're curious about myostatin inhibition, go ahead and read....

    MyoGrow, as cheesey as the name sounds, is the only sound theoretical approach I've seen so far. They, as mentioned above, are implementing siRNA moeities that will bind to the mRNA encoding myostatin and effectively preventing translation of the myostatin mRNA into the myostatin protein. Gene "silencing" via siRNA is a powerful and rapidly evolving tool in molecular biology that has tons of potential. The beauty of it is that the siRNAs are injected, preferably IM, but it was mentioned sub Q above, and some will be taken up into cells where it will bind/pair with what it is designed to be complementary to, in this case myostatin mRNA...thus forming double stranded RNA. Since the only time the human body should be encountering dsRNA is when it is of a viral source, the body's quickly recognizes and degrades the dsRNA (consisting of the myostatin mRNA and the siRNA). This effectively prevents the myostatin protein from being synthesized. However, this system is beautiful because as the siRNA which has been injected pairs with myostatin mRNA and degrades and eventually runs out (gets titrated), the myostatin gene, GDF-8 (I believe) continues transcribing myostatin mRNA. Therefore, once there is no longer any siRNAin the body, pretherapy physiology ensues....no permanent disruptions in gene expression.
    Some problems I have with their MyoGrow are that the effects will be localized. RNA is incredibly prone to degradation. It is very sensitive to fluctuations in temp and pH as well as salt conditions. In addition, RNAses are present everywhere. Injecting subQ only slows in the siRNA getting to where it needs to go...the muscle cells. The further away from its intended target you introduce it, the greater the chance of degradation. Also, the makers state that 12 nanomoles are sufficient for a 60 day in vivo human trial (hypothetically, of course). This was directly from their response to one of my emails directed to their tech people. They did not comment on the suggested frequency of injections. However, I doubt that this amt will be sufficient to have significant effects....but I may test that theory anyway
    They offered no data to support that the siRNAs that they have developed will effectively "silence" myostatin but rather directed me towards general siRNA studies, with which I'm already very familiar.
    I'm hesitant to say "MyoGrow" will or will not work, BUT it, in no way, should be compared to these BS myostatin blocking pills or other compounds...there simply is no validity to even a slight possibility that these products will selectively inhibit myostatin in any way.
    I do take my hat off to the "MyoGrow" guys for using the most cutting edge and appropriate approaches to creating an effective inhibitor, but whether or not the specific siRNAs they have work is yet to be shown...to me anyway.
    On a side not, a permanent myostatin inhibitor is relatively easy to desine, being that they have isolated myostatin and know it's structure. It's finding an effective way to reverse the process that will cause the delay.
    Here's a link to the MyoGrow stuff. I am anxious to give it a try, but I'd want to run it alone or with something I already know how I react to, so that I can accurately guage its effect. I'd also like a little more scientific responses from the makers when responding to my emails. I will try it..withing 6 months or so.

    http://www.silobiotech.com/muscle_products.htm






    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by hitmeoff
    Ok guys, I got a Myostatin inhbitor that ive been using for about a week and a half now.

    Its not an oral like MyoBlast or anything crappy like that. Its an injectable, shot everyday Sub-Q.

    The preparation for this stuff is kinda complicated, you gotta basically reconstitue 3 different kinds of siRNAs then mix them together and distribute them into smaller vials that hold approx 2ml of solution. You use 1ml a day.

    It seems to be doing something. Ever since I got a cold about a month ago I was loosing strength, even when I was a few weeks removed from the cold I was still suffering strength loss (I had also just come off a HEAVY HEAVY cycle about 2 months ago). But last week was a VERY good week for me in the gym. I reagained all the strength I lost when I got sick, and gained some more on top of that. My weight has gone up about 2lbs as well.

    A friend of mine used this before and apparently gained 11lbs over the course of 2 months. So this doesnt seem like a magic bullet or anything like that, but the it does seem to give some results (it did for my buddy, and it SEEMS to be doing it for me).

  17. #17
    co2boi's Avatar
    co2boi is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,689
    So is that available to the public?

  18. #18
    slobberknocker's Avatar
    slobberknocker is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    386
    it would probably only cost about a million dollars, lol

  19. #19
    Dude-Man's Avatar
    Dude-Man is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Nowhere, USA
    Posts
    5,978
    Quote Originally Posted by slobberknocker
    it would probably only cost about a million dollars, lol
    In actuality it shouldn't cost any more than a typical vaccination, when the only factor considered is production costs.

  20. #20
    RussianVodka's Avatar
    RussianVodka is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Russian liquer plant
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by GenuinePL
    I hope that the only side effect are that:
    YOU WILL BE ABLE TO F*CK FOR 2 HOURS STRAIGHT AS AN CARDIO EXERCISE, LOL
    I want that virus, I want it NOW!!!

  21. #21
    cascade's Avatar
    cascade is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Eh?
    Posts
    125
    "Sources also say that McDonald's is working on a supercow that is six times larger than normal cows."
    WTF? a 3200lb cow?
    Somethings are better left alone. Although I would be interested in seeing one.
    Or even better a 2000lb BB.

  22. #22
    Pinch's Avatar
    Pinch is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    n/a
    Posts
    308
    idealy you would only grow as long as you have the nutrients to support the growth...

    your body can't make new cells out of nothing

  23. #23
    Mealticket's Avatar
    Mealticket is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,812
    This si the future of doping. undetectable, this is what the elite athlete of the world will turn too when they need the edge. Gene therapy has been talked about since Sydney. Olympic athletes will be the first test subjects on gene therapy. Allthough no one will ever know.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinch
    idealy you would only grow as long as you have the nutrients to support the growth...

    your body can't make new cells out of nothing
    Not exactly on topic, but I've read a couple papers lately that have transgenically expressed IGF-1 in mouse muscles in vivo. They got expression for a very long time. However, the hypertrophic effects, althouth that's not accurate, lasted only ten weeks. IGF-1 has an effect on muscle by recruiting satellite cells (kind of muscular stem cells) and cause them to fully differentiate. These new myocytes then mature and are what causes an increase in cross sectional area. The papers hypothesized that after 10 weeks, the supply of satellite cells was nearly exhausted and growth hit a plateau.
    Continuous IGF-1 use is not a good idea, not that anyone here is doing that. Cycling IGF-1 allows the satellite cells not recruited to replenish themselves by dividing and maintaining their undifferentiated state, so your next IGF-1 cycle can recruit for of them to differentiate.

  25. #25
    co2boi's Avatar
    co2boi is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,689
    I don't think there is any such thing as "undetectable". The man always finds a way to hold us back. I imagine they would require all atheletes to have a dna sample "on file", then they could make comparisons before sporting events / competitions, etc. Haven't you guys seen Gatica? Sheesh.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,145
    Quote Originally Posted by co2boi
    I don't think there is any such thing as "undetectable". The man always finds a way to hold us back. I imagine they would require all atheletes to have a dna sample "on file", then they could make comparisons before sporting events / competitions, etc. Haven't you guys seen Gatica? Sheesh.

    The genes added would be episomal/extrachromosomal. They really couldn't detect anything. They could see higher levels of some mRNAs/proteins, but they need to find the source of this. You have to account for genetic variability and cannot point a finger at someone merely for circumstantial evidence (i.e. some people having higher than normal levels of certain proteins). By the way, this isn't all so far off in the future....hint hint.

  27. #27
    Nemesis_Enforcer is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    4
    Did they mention anything about why the last mouse's package was so small?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •