http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1281398 40-60% increased muscle growth no side effect(on mice) Ive only heard of it in belgian blue cattle which have the gene naturally. So would you use? I dont think I would, my dad said he would. Why hasn't this gene occured in nature more through evoloution.
myostatin might help keep cancer cells from spreading. if you had cancer in part of your muscle, and no mystatin to inhibit the growth of that muscle, the cancer will spread like crazy. it also might play a role in conservation of energy. if you were starving during a famine, but your muscles kept growing bigger and stronger, your metabolism would be crazy high, so natually, you'd be the first to starve to death since you need the most food. other than that, i wish i had no myostatin, and if i would get my hands on mysostatin inhibitors, i would . myostatin inhibitors can be used to help those with muscular dystrophy and other disease associated with loss of muscle mass & strength. also, when we get older, we experience sarcopenia (loss of muscle mass due to cell death). if we take myostatin inhibitors, this could slow down the process, and maybe even reverse it . wouldn't u want to be benching 250lbs when you're 80 years old?
Why not have it naturally? Because in nature, food is scarce, you can't have an extra 100 pounds of muscle eating all your food. plus, you don't want to be 300 pounds when it comes time to run from a lion.
Myostatin blockers are yet to work in humans. There's a few Uni's around the world spending BIG dollars trying to get the experiment conducted on mice to translate to human subjects (for obvious reasons). Apparently they are quite a few years off yet. Would I use them? I dont know. As wazzabi said, they could be a double edged sword
Probably not to be honest, i like being able to choose which muscles i build. I don't want big eyebrows, gums and nostrils just for an easy way to gain the extra pounds. To me it's a bit like doing rope climbs to failure, it looks better on paper than it turns out in practice.
andrew69: what article did u get that from? i'd like to know when they'll actually get them to work in humans
Well I think if something seams too good it usually is, like the sweetners in all the diet drinks which cause cancer - Im not a scrooge about sweetners i have diet coke quite a bit though.
Exactly, so far all the research has been on mice and rats. The most foremost use is for people with muscular dystrophy issues but over the past couple of years the bodybuilding world has been following the issue very closely. Nothing has been proven in humans so far. Personally I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, especially with the complete lack of any research and the proposed mechanisms for it being very carcinogenic. Who wants to put that kind of ridiculous risk in for muscle gain? I would rather do a test cycle, and I wouldn't touch steroids either so that's saying something. Just put the hard work in and keep eating.
Never thought of the cancer, if a tumour was there it would be accelerated 40-60% I gues so I dont think people would take that risk. Bodybuilders would be the most tempted . As for athletes alot of sport is to do with technique and training the CNS for max strength, they would still only get as strong as the CNS would allow. So max strength may increase slightly faster, but I imagine you would gain more mass than normal, not very good for sports. Were relative strength is usually most important.
Amen to that. Remember - only a tiny fraction of compounds that have preclinical signs of therapeutic value actually make it to market. Thalidomide was safe in mice and guinea pigs..
Interesting topic here. I wish I were born with a recesseive myostatin gene thingy (like that baby pic on t-nation...15 years from now that's gonna be one scary athlete...). More research needs to be done though I believe (And is anyone else getting a Halo vibe here if you've read any of the books? Ya know....how they altered the Spartans muscle size and strength with an injection of protein stuff of some sort.. ). I have a question though. How would myostatin inhibition speed up tumor growth? In that t-nation "article", the mice with the myostatin gene "turned off" were said to have twice the muscle, 1/3 less body fat, and their cardiac and smooth muscles were not affected, nor was their lifespan adversely affected. So... what if myostatin only affected skeletal muscle?
Not read any halo stuff. I have friend who knows a lot about nanotech, deus ex like augmentations seam more realistic and aplicable to warfare than muscle enhancers.
say you have a mutated muscle in your body, which might become a tumour. logically, you'd want the keep this mutated region as localized and in as small of an area as possible. however, if your myostatin is inhibited, the mutated muscle cell will keep making mutated copies of itself, and before you know it, you have a huge cancerous muscle in your body. by that time you're already screwed because the cancer has spread throughout the body. remember that even when you don't have myostatin inhibition, the cancer in that 1 muscle cell still has the ability to spread throughout the body. if the mutated muscle cell keeps dividing & making more mutated muscle cells, then you have a million times the spreading of the mutated material. by that time you're probably dead.
As somebody said before, look at thalidomide and all other disastrous substances that appeared to be ok yet really were not. Asbestos anybody?
It's being developed to help cure people with MD, and as far as that goes, I hope they're successful. As for bodybuilders following developments closely - I honestly believe that if something came out as effective as what they're hoping for that it would be the end of bodybuilding.
If it becomes that easy to put on huge amounts of muscle it might just push bodybuilding towards the aesthetically pleasing physiques and away from the mass monsters.
I understand if you were to have screwy muscle cells, then you'd be SOL, but has there been any real reasearch done on effects of myostatin inhibitors in relation to cancerous tumors (not of skeletal muscle)? I definitely think and agree more research is needed before people start injecting themselves with stuff (which usually isn't a good idea in the first place...but hey!). I haven't read up on myostatin stuff yet...I get distracted easily.. :woo:
