Printable View
I have posted a question about eq and endurance, but got many answers that cardarine and this is without a doubt a good choice to improve endurance.
I've thought about this before, but dropped this when I read about the product, it pops up repeated warnings about the risk of cancer.
what do you think about this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrad1980
This is a pretty good article that addresses both early phase 1 and 2 human studies and the carcinogenic effects that came to light during the animal studies.
The animal studies were 2-3 years at length and extremely high doses compared to the average human trials of 3 months at 10 mgs.
I ran it before I was diagnosed with cancer last year and was unimpressed. I certainly don’t attribute it to the diagnosis I ended up with, however I certainly wouldn’t run it again because frankly I was unimpressed and it’s not worth the risk/reward ratio in my book. The juice wasn’t worth the squeeze...
My .2
Here’s the link (scroll to the bottom for the objective portions of the studies)
https://moreplatesmoredates.com/cardarine-overview/
Thanks S&D!! I have been looking for something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by SampsonandDelilah
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just started using it last week at 10 mg/day just to get some extra boost for cardio and get the lipids in good ratio . So far its doing what its suppose to do . It did caused cancer in lab rats with extremely high doses when given for their whole life span i.e 2 to 3 years. Anything abused will have same or worse effects. If you drink enough water it can kill you,Tanning beds cause cancer,second hand smoke cause cancer. Tobacco cause cancer,processed meats can cause cancer,grilling your meat can cause cancer ... and the list goes on and on and on. Choose your poison my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrad1980
I think I choose not to. Many are carcinogenic but rats in experiments got cancer, rats do not live long either. So this is quite a short-term effect, with a high dose of course. low dose long-term effect is not known enough. The effect of Cardarine, is it most when you use it or do you want to maintain increased endurance after quitting Cardarine?
This was enlightening to me. I didn’t know that they gave it to them fir two years with a life expectancy of 2-3 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by ksingh93
Although this study has changed my opinion, I would like to address the dosage. The dosage that they gave these rats and mice is the same exact dosage that they give for testing any other medical trial.
To your point, you can’t go anywhere in cA without seeing that something on these premises has been known to cause cancer. Even the hospital. LOL
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by charger69
Agreed, I think Ksingh93 brings up some valid points about so many things being attributed to cancer and he’s correct in the expectancy and dosing to the rodents.
Sounds like he got some good results. In my case, I really didn’t notice much at all cardio and endurance wise or with my cholesterol (my labs with regards to HDL/LDL were still terrible). I used a great source with whom I know is trusted and reputable and used it with a tren run (which in my opinion makes the absolute most sense to use this stuff). Tren smokes my cholesterol and and my cardio...I was thinking this shit would save me and if it was advertised, you’d be crazy not to use it with tren. However, I can’t say o noticed any differences subjectively or objectively. So for me, the risks associated with it just weren’t worth it. Had they been, I would’ve kept rolling the dice
I have come to one conclusion... I don’t know shit.
Just when you think that you are beginning to understand, something new comes up and what you thought you knew isn’t 100% correct.
I am researching because I was told the other day that a test based cycle isn’t always the correct thing to do. All AAS suppresses test production... right? Yes, but some require time to do it because it suppresses it through different feedback channel whereas test itself immediately suppresses natural production. In other words you take a particular AAS and it may take 8-9 weeks to stop test production. If you have an 8 week cycle... guess what.. no PCT required.
That is how Olympic atheletes beat the testing.. PCT will also test positive.
Like I said, I am researching this, but it does sound reasonable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The thing with ugls and research chemicals is you can have a reputable source but his raw source might have messed up on the order. Happens time to time with aas too but more with sarms and peptides. you can bump upto 20- 25 mg per day for a two week period and get the blood test. If its cholesterol is still shitty or no noticeable endurance gain it might be bunk . Its always hit and miss with these chemicals one batch is spot on other one is straight up shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by SampsonandDelilah
Just a quick add. Not only do these mice they used for the testing only live for 2-3 years - the actual reason why they die is because they are well known for developing cancers of various types that kills them rather early. Hence why the study has essentially been thrown out by bro science. As a pharmacist who’s looked through all the literature on it I think you’d be fine for a short duration as I believe the drug is intended to be used for. What it was originally being developed for (essentially an exercise mimetic that would prevent CVD and diabetes) is probably worthless to think about because you’d be required to be on it for life. A short course during a cutting cycle should be totally fine given what we know - but nothings is without possibility.
The test used for cancer is standard across all trials. The fact that this standard resulted in enough mice with cancer does say something. They stopped going forward with the “miracle medicine “ because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albedo121
I will say that the humans used in some of the tests did not report any cancer however it was not followed up since the testing was stopped.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m confused - the testing standard has nothing to do with the actual mice that were tested. The population of mice was 100% homogenous and are well known for developing multiple different cancers. The study in question administered different doses for literally the entire life of the rats (as it’s known their average life span is about 30 months. (The study administered about 25 months of drug). So in totality not only was the dose higher than the human equivalent, it was administered to rats who were essentially guaranteed to develop cancer on that timeline, and it was administered for essentially they’re entire life. The study shows absolutely nothing unfortunately. It doesn’t mean it’s not possible - it just means it can’t be attributed based on what we know right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by charger69
And the reason it was stopped was because it just wasn’t worth pursuing if there was a chance that it causes any issues like this as the whole fucking point of the drug indication would be to administer it for the patients entire life to prevent CVD and diabetes as I mentioned above.
The dosage, age and length is a standard for any clinical trial. They do not just make it up to what they feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albedo121
Saying that this was different is incorrect.
I am not saying if the study says anything or not... everyone is trying to say this is an exception... it is not.
I know 4 people that used it and have cancer. Coincidence? Maybe. There is no proof that it did cause the cancer so I am not hopping on that bus. I do however think that it does lead to indications.
Remember, this was being toted as “exercise in a bottle”, which is more like a supplement where it would make far more money to the main population.
Damn- just go to CA where just about every building has signs that this place has products known to be carcinogens..... even at a freaking hospital.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did you just say that the dosage, age and length is standard for every trial? Are you saying that every trial uses these mice at this age, for this duration and at that specific dose? In what world is any of these parameters standard in any specific trial? It’s exactly this reason that we have systematic reviews and meta analysis that literally have to start with saying how much heterogeneity they have amongst the studies because there’s always WAY TOO MUCH of it haha. The study was what it was but to act as if anything was standard and that it was exceptional quality is flat out wrong. It’s just that we have very little to go off of, following it up with anecdotal evidence is exactly what perpetuates these kinds of concepts. The bottom line is fuck tons of stuff causes cancer in the world, eliminating confounders is next to impossible over a duration of 2-3 years. Using mice that are KNOWN for developing excessive amounts of cancer and attempting to attribute cancer to a drug used in the study with said mice is alwaysssss gonna be difficult to delineate an actual causal relationship vs sporadic correlation. The study is shit, but sometimes shit is all we’re gonna get.Quote:
Originally Posted by charger69
What I am saying is clinical trials are run from a standard. It is not just based on how they feel that day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albedo121
I studied both sides of this pretty extensively.
The funny thing that we have here is that all of the benefits found are good from this “suspect” sample population however the cancer is disregarded.
My last investigation only showed that in humans, the only benefits of it was better control of the bloods and not fat loss as it is commercially touted. The fat loss was only found in the rodents. People argue that the qty the rodents were given was also not representative of what a human would take however the fat loss from this is accepted.
I haven’t followed up I awhile because I had enough information and it was only more of the same.
There may be new information, but I doubt it. People seemed happy with their justification of what results were acceptable and what results were not.
I just hope that it really does not cause cancer because it is pretty popular. Cancer is something that I know quite a bit about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As you may make a point, they're so many factors when it comes to fucking anything you put into your body, that's like me saying Vit C is great , I recommend it to you and you saying you still got a cold and your immune system is still shitty.Quote:
Originally Posted by ksingh93
EVERYONE is different and will respond or not respond to the way someone else does.
It's why taking advice or following others protocols is plain stupid.
Your rational is correct by very little.
Some of the things you say are just poor and just very extreme.
You made a comment about taking to much of anything is bad for you. Yes. For some it's awful, for some it's not.
Also to say everything gives you cancer is dumb as fuck as well.
Some people go their entire lives never experiencing the evil "C" where as some unfortunately get it. It's fucking awful but to tell someone it's bound to happen taking to much is very naive.
I see so many bad comments giving "advice" when all it will do is make someone think from a very poor perspective.
Forums are made to help, not put fear.
Our country is already fucked up enough.
Like charger has stated, everything in Cali says "may cause cancer" I've ordered protein powder from Cali and it told me it may cause cancer hahah like wtf. Does it necessarily do this? Probably fucking not.
Please read over your "findings" and do some more research before stating things.
Sent from my JSN-AL00 using Tapatalk