But why would you choose or even consider a sarm, when it is safer to just take pharma statins, for your purposes? You are even saying that your "cholesterol is just genetically not good".
Wouldn't that be the best route to take?
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Cardarine for lipids
- Thread starter Lilj888
- Start date
Wouldn't that be the best route to take?
Eddie.
Well-known Member
GW is not a SARM but a ppar-δ receptor agonist. I would gladly use it if its other effects interest me, like improving my endurance and help with fatloss, then GW is a great tool. To use it solely for its lipid management? No.
I'm already using ezetimibe and after my end of cycle if lipids are still skewed, which most possibly will due to anavar, then i'll add a low dose statin as well.
trtbuilder
Well-known Member
This thread is hilarious
Instead of taking a safe statin that is taken by millions of people around the world you want to take an experimental drug that causes cancer and has no clinical proof of the lowering of LDL to actually be beneficial in long term outcomes.
Some people are truly retarded.
Instead of taking a safe statin that is taken by millions of people around the world you want to take an experimental drug that causes cancer and has no clinical proof of the lowering of LDL to actually be beneficial in long term outcomes.
Some people are truly retarded.
Statins safe?
Here’s just the first study that popped up if I want to do short term to get my crap back in check
Long-Term Outcomes of Short-Term Statin Use in Healthy Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study - Drug Safety
Introduction Data suggest that the beneficial cardiovascular effects of statins are maximized after the first year of statin use; yet, the timeline of statin-associated adverse events is not well delineated. Objective To examine the associations of short-term statin use (≤1 year) with short- and...
link.springer.com
trtbuilder
Well-known Member
Yes, they're safe.Statins safe?
Here’s just the first study that popped up if I want to do short term to get my crap back in check
Long-Term Outcomes of Short-Term Statin Use in Healthy Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study - Drug Safety
Introduction Data suggest that the beneficial cardiovascular effects of statins are maximized after the first year of statin use; yet, the timeline of statin-associated adverse events is not well delineated. Objective To examine the associations of short-term statin use (≤1 year) with short- and...
No, an experimental drug that was never approved for humans due to causing cancer with zero clinical evidence of benefits for lipids is not.
Nothing is safe is my point. Statins have numerous negative studies. Pick your poison
And your cancer study relates to rat’s predispositioned to cancer and ran the majority of their life at about double dose ppl take
Last edited:
trtbuilder
Well-known Member
Cool man - run Cardarine for life and you should be good to go! Glad we could help.
Tirz also impacts iron levels tho as well from what ive been hearing… sweet that it helps lower ldld and clear a fatty liver tho…
What miraculous properties? I’m unsure of how much they sunk into it, but companies abandon drugs for a multitude of reasons after putting a lot of money into them.
trtbuilder
Well-known Member
That's great and all but it was specifically discontinued because of the cancer risk.
Ghoul
Well-known Member
Dramatically lowering cholesterol without the side effects of lipids. Shifting muscle to use lipids for energy vs glucose, which results in the brain not sensing exhaustion from glucose depletion in the bloodstream.
Yeah, I know they drop medications for all sort of reasons. I specifically said my concerns extend to the undisclosed reasons given the enormous money making potential of the combination of cholesterol lowering and performance enhancing effects.
I said I was concerned "not because of the data we've seen", that is cancer in rats fed high doses continuously for 90% of their lifespan, and who's natural cause of death is almost always cancer regardless of drug exposure, but whatever other undisclosed reasons for their decision. They didn't elaborate on the reasons. The normal course of this type of research would be to try again at a lower, less extreme dose. Many drugs are carcinogenic at extremely high doses, but here, it was one and done.
We know that how? And I wasn’t trying to claim the reason it was discontinued b/c I don’t know.
If they really thought it was so lucrative they would’ve likely continued its production as it wouldn’t have been the first time a pharma company continued production of a drug with known harmful side effects. Semaglutide has some evidence of thyroid cancer (in mice i think), but not humans.
Ghoul
Well-known Member
It was rats, but on review the evidence was so weak they removed the pre-prescribing thyroid testing requirement that was in place for Wegovy for a short time after its initial release.
I can't find the reference, but I remember reading one of the lead researchers in Ozempic's clinical trials saying they should've taken the time to gather the evidence necessary to avoid that boxed warning when the FDA asked for it. Probably execs in a hurry to get it into the market.
I think you’re exaggerating the magnitude of those effects. Especially in gen pop and the usefulness of that drug for gen pop, which is where the vast majority of revenue comes from. Doctors rarely prescribe drugs for performance enhancement. That’s strictly something communities like ours considers.
I honestly believe that it’s more likely this was discontinued more due to lack of market demand than anything else. Most of cardarine’s effects seem due to allowing someone to work harder. Its lipid alterations seem inconsistent at best. Its fat loss effect used alone is practically nonexistent. Other drugs are much better at these outcomes.
My bad, then. Sorry.
When it's discussed, it often gets lumped together with sarms that have been found to carry the risk of cancer development (yes, only anumal studies etc, but if there is nothing else you have to look at what info is available and make your mind up).
Have you actually taken it or are you saying that you would?
nukklehead
Member
I always questioned the massive doses they gave to the study animals. I have read most all the studies everyone else has. Seems rough summary of most of what I have read shows some variable increase in endurance, and lipids were pretty much on the fence ..as I... and I have taken GW a few times. No blood was drawn at the times I have taken it. My conclusion is I did feel like more endurance and I dont think (???) it was placebo Who knows?
Now I really wanted to reply because I was having a conspiracy theory moment.
What if GW was successful say, maybe working it a bit more by the researchers/ Big Pharma and it helped raise HDL's helped lower LDL's and increased endurance maybe helping in reducing other chronic diseases i.e Diabetes, CAD---...How many existing drugs and drugs in the pipeline would that eliminate? Statins, diabetic drugs, triglyceride drugs etc. Think about it.
If you were big pharma would you like a drug that could cheaply help treat
these diseases? How much money would you lose? Regarding the Cancer all I can say is I just dont agree with that study based on the doses they were giving. Is this standard procedure when going through the pipeline and phases of FDA approval? If you gave equivalent doses based on weight of most other drugs I bet a lot of them would cause cancer or other illnesses/complications too. I think they torpedoed the study due to above. Conspiracy theory over,
I will remove the hat.
Now I really wanted to reply because I was having a conspiracy theory moment.
What if GW was successful say, maybe working it a bit more by the researchers/ Big Pharma and it helped raise HDL's helped lower LDL's and increased endurance maybe helping in reducing other chronic diseases i.e Diabetes, CAD---...How many existing drugs and drugs in the pipeline would that eliminate? Statins, diabetic drugs, triglyceride drugs etc. Think about it.If you were big pharma would you like a drug that could cheaply help treat
these diseases? How much money would you lose? Regarding the Cancer all I can say is I just dont agree with that study based on the doses they were giving. Is this standard procedure when going through the pipeline and phases of FDA approval? If you gave equivalent doses based on weight of most other drugs I bet a lot of them would cause cancer or other illnesses/complications too. I think they torpedoed the study due to above. Conspiracy theory over,
I will remove the hat.
Last edited:
Thing is, say it does increase endurance to a statistically significant degree. That doesn’t automatically equate to better health. Users of the drug still need to exercise to get most of the effect from it. This is the biggest impediment for the general population already. Why would a drug whose main benefit is allowing people to work harder even be appealing for most of the population?I always questioned the massive doses they gave to the study animals. I have read most all the studies everyone else has. Seems rough summary of most of what I have read shows some variable increase in endurance, and lipids were pretty much on the fence ..as I... and I have taken GW a few times. No blood was drawn at the times I have taken it. My conclusion is I did feel like more endurance and I dont think (???) it was placebo Who knows?
Now I really wanted to reply because I was having a conspiracy theory moment.
If you were big pharma would you like a drug that could cheaply help treat
these diseases?
The GLP-1’s have been so successful in part b/c they don’t require people to make additional changes to their daily lives. People still eat meals when they’re hungry. Just less.
As for improved lipids, without any human study demonstrating it, I have to remain skeptical it can do much of anything in non-exercising populations.
So I just can’t follow along with a pharma conspiracy about a drug that mostly lets people exercise harder. And I fully believe that a not insignificant number in that realm are capable of such things. I just don’t believe the specifics of this drug/case make any sense to support it.
From what others more familiar with the protocols have written, it’s more common than you might expect. And these studies weren’t going to be the end of it. There were still additional barriers to clear.
clearheaded
Member
I imagine increases ferritin as your guts are moving slower longer in acidic stomach etc?
Eddie.
Well-known Member
No worries! Usually they sell it with the other known sarms but technically it's not one. This is the one side of the coin, on the other side there are studies shown it's cancer protective! Also, the dosages that speed up cancer to these rats were ridiculous. I haven't tried it yet, i was about to run in throughout my cut instead if clen but the source i was waiting to stock it (eu pharmaqo) delayed it almost 2 months and in that point i found it doesn't worth to run it for 4 weeks only. I'm probably gonna run it in my next cut.
Ghoul
Well-known Member
Lipid effects of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-δ agonist GW501516 in subjects with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol: characteristics of metabolic syndrome - PubMed
GW501516 produced significant changes in HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apoA1, and apoB. Fewer very LDL and larger LDL support a transition toward less atherogenic lipoprotein profiles. These data are consistent with peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-δ being a potentially important...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
A remarkable result in not only lowering cholesterol, but shifting the entire lipid profile to a much healthier one, in humans, at such a small dose.
The fact that this passed the necessary ethics and government approvals to conduct a human trial with GW50516 also says something. They would never approve human studies using a confirmed carcinogen.
If the effects on lipids are linear, then the standard 20mg PED dosage is more effective than high dose, high side effect, high muscle pain risk, diabetes inducing doses of statins.
There is plenty of evidence of a link to cancer's course of development. It appears to either change the nature of the cancer, speed its progress, or slow it down. I think the main interest of the most current research is exploring its use as an anti-cancer drug.
What it doesn't seem to do is induce new cancers. But if there's an undetected, slow growing one it could speed it up.
Last edited:
