# Brief exposure to performance-enhancing drugs may be permanently ‘remembered’ by muscles



## MonkeyBusiness (Dec 22, 2018)

*Brief exposure to performance-enhancing drugs may be permanently ‘remembered’ by muscles*

_*Interesting piece below.
Conclusions reached (for those who do not want to read the whole thing: brief exposure to anabolics may improve muscle-building decades into one life. This may be particularly beneficial later in life as the body has a harder time generating new muscular tissue.
Would love to hear thoughts from you guys.

Link:
http://www.physoc.org/press-release/2013/steroids-muscle

Text of article below:
*_


Brief exposure to anabolic steroids may have long lasting, possibly permanent, performance-enhancing effects, shows a study published today [28 October] in The Journal of Physiology.

Previously, re-acquisition of muscle mass – with or without steroid use – after periods of inactivity has been attributed to motor learning. However, this new data from the University of Oslo suggests that there is a cellular ‘memory mechanism’ within muscle of brief steroid users.

The team investigated the effects of steroids on muscle re-acquisition in mice and discovered greater muscle mass and more myonuclei – which are essential components for muscle fibre function – were apparent after returning to exercise.

Professor Kristian Gundersen explains how they carried out the study and the results found:

“Mice were briefly exposed to steroids which resulted in increased muscle mass and number of cell nuclei in the muscle fibres. Three months after withdrawal of the drug (approximately 15% of a mouse's life span) their muscles grew by 30% over six days following load exercise. The untreated mice grew insignificantly.”

The findings might have consequences for the exclusion time of doping offenders as brief exposure to anabolic steroids might have long lasting performance-enhancing effects.

Prof Gundersen says:

“The results in our mice may correspond to the effects of steroids lasting for decades in humans given the same cellular ‘muscle memory’ mechanism. The new results might spur a debate on the current World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code in which the maximum exclusion time is currently two years.”

Additionally, the data suggests that strength training when young might be beneficial later in life since the ability to generate new myonuclei is impaired in the elderly.  

Future studies should include human muscles and further investigation into the cellular and molecular mechanism for muscle memory.


----------



## Yaya (Dec 22, 2018)

I took tren for the first time years ago

Was never the same


----------



## Jin (Dec 22, 2018)

Still gaining from my dbol only cycle from 2015. 280 this morning. All I want is to be small again. 

Dont say you haven't been warned.


----------



## John Ziegler (Dec 22, 2018)

this completely contradicts thee ole 

once you take steroids youll ruin your potential wives tale 

& you ought to be to the extent of your natural capabilities before using steroids

or youll shrink back to nothing type of deal 

not sure how all that got started originally

my guess is a combination of 

juiced up gorillas trying to stay holier than thou 

& or people fearful of a population of juiced up gorilla s


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 22, 2018)

Interesting. But it's mice.


----------



## Seeker (Dec 22, 2018)

lol what a crock of shit. Sorry but this is complete stupid


----------



## Gadawg (Dec 22, 2018)

I would say that reading any 1 study on something like this is a total waste of time.  The majority of this stuff that gets published cannot be repeated in future studies. 

And how do you make mice go to the gym anyway?


----------



## zmartin32 (Dec 22, 2018)

PillarofBalance said:


> Interesting. But it's mice.



The reason we start these kind of tests on mice is because we are, genetically, more than 90% similar to them.


----------



## zmartin32 (Dec 22, 2018)

This actually reminds me of an article I read a few months ago about long term AAS use can increase the number of muscle fibers (not talking about size, because we already know that) in humans. Ill see if I can find it again.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 22, 2018)

zmartin32 said:


> The reason we start these kind of tests on mice is because we are, genetically, more than 90% similar to them.


Nope. The reason they test in mice is because it's really cheap, easy to control, and you don't have to deal with ethical issues like you do with humans.  Oh and a 10% genetic difference is ****ing huge by the way.

Animal data is practically useless. Even the researchers themselves admit that. Ignore it. Or have a mental masturbation session about it. Up to you.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 22, 2018)

zmartin32 said:


> The reason we start these kind of tests on mice is because we are, genetically, more than 90% similar to them.



10% is a big ass deal tho


----------



## zmartin32 (Dec 22, 2018)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Nope. The reason they test in mice is because it's really cheap, easy to control, and you don't have to deal with ethical issues like you do with humans.  Oh and a 10% genetic difference is ****ing huge by the way.
> 
> Animal data is practically useless. Even the researchers themselves admit that. Ignore it. Or have a mental masturbation session about it. Up to you.



Of course ten percent can make a huge difference because it is what makes the difference between us and mice. But that doesn't mean you throw 90% away. You start somewhere and work up on other animals/gather the evidence to support human trail. 

Animal data is the beginning phase of trials but that doesn't make it useless and a theory supported by animal data is what leads to the next stage in testing. If anything everyone here should be thrilled about this because it means there is likely more science that will be going into field.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 22, 2018)

zmartin32 said:


> Of course ten percent can make a huge difference because it is what makes the difference between us and mice. But that doesn't mean you throw 90% away. You start somewhere and work up on other animals/gather the evidence to support human trail.
> 
> Animal data is the beginning phase of trials but that doesn't make it useless and a theory supported by animal data is what leads to the next stage in testing. If anything everyone here should be thrilled about this because it means there is likely more science that will be going into field.



We know this. So by your admission it's a starting point at best. To us, that doesn't deserve attention. We won't make decisions based on rodent data.

And animal testing doesn't necessarily mean human trials.


----------



## j2048b (Dec 22, 2018)

Well shit i guess ill be the "first human volunteer" then, somrones got to take one for the team
.....


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 22, 2018)

zmartin32 said:


> Of course ten percent can make a huge difference because it is what makes the difference between us and mice. But that doesn't mean you throw 90% away. You start somewhere and work up on other animals/gather the evidence to support human trail.
> 
> *Animal data is the beginning phase of trials but that doesn't make it useless and a theory supported by animal data is what leads to the next stage in testing.* If anything everyone here should be thrilled about this because it means there is likely more science that will be going into field.


Yes, actually, it does mean you throw 90% away. 
I really don't want to be forced into a situation where I have to describe the HUGE differences between us & mice that makes most of this data completely useless. That 10% is so huge that the the vast majority of the time what the data shows in animals isn't replicated in humans. Lack of result replication = throwing 90% away. Period. 

Animals are used for the initial stage of testing because of what I said above. I've had enough personal correspondence with researchers to know they don't really want to use them. They know full well that the results are meaningless to humans. If something is a systematic necessity, like animal testing, that doesn't make it automatically useful. Also, what you said does not in any way counter the fact that it remains *practically* useless.

Practically useful = information we can actually learn & apply to our own lives. Animal data doesn't qualify. Ever. So, unless you also happen to be a researcher looking for funding, the results of these studies mean nothing to you I'm afraid


----------



## Flyingdragon (Dec 22, 2018)

My old gym had mice running around, not sure they were on the jewce, maybe thats where this study originated from.....


----------



## HijackedMyself (Dec 22, 2018)

PillarofBalance said:


> 10% is a big ass deal tho



Obtaining mice is 90% easier.


----------



## John Ziegler (Dec 22, 2018)

Seeker said:


> lol what a crock of shit. Sorry but this is complete stupid



are there any studies backing the claims you posted in the first post of your last thread

just curious


----------



## Seeker (Dec 22, 2018)

Zeigler said:


> are there any studies backing the claims you posted in the first post of your last thread
> 
> just curious



my thread like mentioned at the end of it is solely based on my opinions, observations, and experiences and put up for discussion.  And the fact that you are even comparing my thread to this is  ridiculous and gives me the impression that you're a fuking idiot ! again, just my opinion.


----------



## Flyingdragon (Dec 22, 2018)

Someone needs a Snickers



Seeker said:


> my thread like mentioned at the end of it is solely based on my opinions, observations, and experiences and put up for discussion.  And the fact that you are even comparing my thread to this is  ridiculous and gives me the impression that you're a fuking idiot ! again, just my opinion.


----------



## zmartin32 (Dec 22, 2018)

I think you guys are interpreting what I'm sayin as it is useful to US NOW and to each of us individually. All I'm saying is that it is useful research and it's a crucial step. 

Some smart scientist dickhead had a hypothesis about myofibrils containing some sort of genetic information that allows them to retain "memory" (not super crazy since we have other cells in our body that do that). So he was granted funding and tested this and so far it hold true ON MICE. I get that its just mice but it held true and its creating a huge controversy thats made it way to WADA and the media which means there is a good chance some rich ****s will give him more funding to do more research.


----------



## John Ziegler (Dec 22, 2018)

Seeker said:


> my thread like mentioned at the end of it is solely based on my opinions, observations, and experiences and put up for discussion.  And the fact that you are even comparing my thread to this is  ridiculous and gives me the impression that you're a fuking idiot ! again, just my opinion.



personally thought that your post was a crock of shit as well but had the decency not to say it 

youre welcome


----------



## Seeker (Dec 22, 2018)

Zeigler said:


> personally thought that your post was a crock of shit as well but had the decency not to say it
> 
> youre welcome



all due respect to the OP this thread isn't based on his opinion, it's based on a study he read. My response  wasn't directed towards him but the study itself.  And yes, you are entitled to your opinion and no need to hold back on it with your so called admitted 30 years of AAS experience.


----------



## John Ziegler (Dec 22, 2018)

Seeker said:


> all due respect to the OP this thread isn't based on his opinion, it's based on a study he read. My response  wasn't directed towards him but the study itself.  And yes, you are entitled to your opinion and no need to hold back on it with your so called admitted 30 years of AAS experience.



Is it really that hard to believe someone started using steroids when they were 18 years old 

so now im a liar because i called you out for being rude ?


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 22, 2018)

I got 10 on seek. Who wants in on the action?


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 22, 2018)

zmartin32 said:


> I think you guys are interpreting what I'm sayin as it is useful to US NOW and to each of us individually. All I'm saying is that it is useful research and it's a crucial step.
> 
> Some smart scientist dickhead had a hypothesis about myofibrils containing some sort of genetic information that allows them to retain "memory" (not super crazy since we have other cells in our body that do that). So he was granted funding and tested this and so far it hold true ON MICE. I get that its just mice but it held true and its creating a huge controversy thats made it way to WADA and the media which means there is a good chance some rich ****s will give him more funding to do more research.


I get what you're saying man. My point is that the only reason it is a necessary step is because the system says so. Not because it actually needs to be done to prove useful in humans in future. This is a vital distinction that needs to be understood. 

You can't test a hypothesis on humans due to ethical reasons. So, you *HAVE *to start in animals. In some cases, DNP research for example, you can never test in humans regardless of how cool the animal research is. There is absolutely no guarantee that this will ever be followed up on with humans - keep that in mind since it applies to a hell of a lot of past, interesting, research on AAS. 
Again, it is a systemic need that overrides any potential useful application. Now or in the future. That is the point I am trying to drive home here. Given free reign, researchers would never conduct studies like this if they wanted it to be practically applicable to us. 

I encourage the OP to continue to post scientific research. I'm a big fan of it as would become obvious if you glimpse through some of my past posts. However, I'd recommend keeping it to human data for the sake of applicability and actually generating interest from the board. Just my advice


----------



## Seeker (Dec 22, 2018)

Zeigler said:


> Is it really that hard to believe someone started using steroids when they were 18 years old
> 
> so now im a liar because i called you out for being rude ?


again your reading comprehension has issues. As stated, my remarks were not at all directed towards the OP but the study itself.  I'm sure the people who ran the study dont mind. Or, maybe they do. If you would to continue with this take it to PM. I'm done here


----------



## John Ziegler (Dec 22, 2018)

Seeker said:


> again your reading comprehension has issues. As stated, my remarks were not at all directed towards the OP but the study itself.  I'm sure the people who ran the study dont mind. Or, maybe they do. If you would to continue with this take it to PM. I'm done here



No thanks 

my interpretation of your post was that you were being rude to Monkey 

you said it was not your intention 

done deal


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 22, 2018)

Thank God this forums exists, otherwise those trained scientists never would have realized that mice are different from humans.


----------



## John Ziegler (Dec 22, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> Thank God this forums exists, otherwise those trained scientists never would have realized that mice are different from humans.



you know scientists are some of the biggest idiots on the planet right


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 22, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> Thank God this forums exists, otherwise those trained scientists never would have realized that mice are different from humans.


Because those trained scientists have never been guilty of focusing on financial gain and name recognition rather than, you know, working on actually helping humans. No sir. That NEVER happens. Nope. Nope. Nope. I mean could you IMAGINE a researcher publishing meaningless bullshit just so he could add it to his resume? What a shocking state of affairs that would be! Thank the lord above that we don't live in such a...hmm..wait a minute...

Oh and since we seem determined to head down this rabbit hole, and because I can, lets start here: 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3938718/
_"The study of human satellite cells has lagged and thus little is known about how the biology of mouse and human satellite cells compare... *not all mechanisms regulating mouse satellite cell activation are conserved in human satellite cells and that such differences may impact the clinical translation of therapeutics validated in mouse models.*"
_


----------



## John Ziegler (Dec 22, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> I have an idea, scientists should post about their future experiments here, and we could just tell them which ones are good ideas and which ones aren't. That way they could avoid wasting their time like this.



especially when it comes to debunking old wives tales about steroids ruining your chances of ever being any good naturally there after right 

i mean isnt that what were supposed to believe so dont even try it or youll shoot your eye out kid


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 22, 2018)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Because those trained scientists have never been guilty of focusing on financial gain and name recognition rather than, you know, working on actually helping humans. No sir. That NEVER happens. Nope. Nope. Nope. I mean could you IMAGINE a researcher publishing meaningless bullshit just so he could add it to his resume? What a shocking state of affairs that would be! Thank the lord above that we don't live in such a...hmm..wait a minute...
> 
> Oh and since we seem determined to head down this rabbit hole, and because I can, lets start here:
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3938718/
> ...





> “The results in our mice may correspond to the effects of steroids lasting for decades in humans given the same cellular ‘muscle memory’ mechanism. The new results might spur a debate on the current World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code in which the maximum exclusion time is currently two years.”



I mean, no one is saying that this is a definitive answer to our prayers... They study clearly states that it *may* be the case for humans. I don't even understand why you would argue this if the answer is in the study itself.


Edit: there are tons of articles against mice trials for this exact reason. No one is trying to pretend to have answers to anything here.


----------



## John Ziegler (Dec 22, 2018)

PillarofBalance said:


> I got 10 on seek. Who wants in on the action?



of course you got seek you over grown juiced up gorillas stick together like flies on shit


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 22, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> I mean, no one is saying that this is a definitive answer to our prayers... They study clearly states that it *may* be the case for humans. I don't even understand why you would argue this if the answer is in the study itself.
> Edit: there are tons of articles against mice trials for this exact reason. No one is trying to pretend to have answers to anything here.


But why would those "trained scientists" even go ahead with such a study when they surely know that muscle satellite cell regulation differs drastically between the two species and therefore it is highly unlikely that the results will mean anything? Come on...horse to water...

Lets take it further since the picture obviously isn't clear yet:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16582096
- The DNL contribution to triglyceride levels in rodents is around 60-70% where as it only contributes <5% in humans, which illustrates the completely different metabolisms that we have. Now, with this in mind, why do we continue to see nutritional research with rodents as the subjects?


----------



## John Ziegler (Dec 22, 2018)

while were at it why do any cancer research on mice they are apples to oranges 

theres only a 10% match right 

so if a mouse caught cancer in a cage full of cigarette smoke 

that doesnt lead us to believe it would happen to a human too 

because we arent but a 10% match

we should always start at the human level no stepping stones


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 22, 2018)

Here is why:



> Mice have many advantages for research, as Montagutelli explains. “They are small and inexpensive, they reproduce quickly – every three months you obtain a new generation – and they age quickly too, making them ideal for studying age-related complaints. We know how to freeze their embryos, sperm and ova. We now know how to manipulate their genes, adding one, knocking out another, and replace a base pair to see what happens. They are remarkable tools.”
> 
> A quick look at the list of Nobel prizes for medicine confirms their contribution: discovery of sulphonamides in 1939; penicillin, 1945; yellow fever vaccine, 1951; polio vaccine, 1954; cellular origin of retroviral oncogenes, 1989; HIV-Aids virus, 2008; not to mention prions in 1997. Each time mice played a key part. In the 1980s nearly one-in-three Nobel prizes for medicine were awarded to work on mice. “In genetics, cancer, immune response, embryonic and nervous systems and infectious diseases … in short in most fields, mice are valuable,” Montagutelli adds.



https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/20/mice-clinical-trials-human-disease

I'm sure you can pinpoint which fields should use mice and which fields shouldn't. I will choose to be more cautious and take things as they are presented to me. I'm sure the university of Oslo funds anything that sounds impressive.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 22, 2018)

Zeigler said:


> while were at it why do any cancer research on mice they are apples to oranges
> 
> theres only a 10% match right
> 
> ...



No what we are saying is don't act like mice research is something to base how you live on.


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 22, 2018)

PillarofBalance said:


> No what we are saying is don't act like mice research is something to base how you live on.


As I said already, no one is doing that. Read the two last paragraphs of the article and you'll see why.

Edit: sorry, 3 last paragraphs.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 22, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> As I said already, no one is doing that. Read the two last paragraphs of the article and you'll see why.
> 
> Edit: sorry, 3 last paragraphs.



No thanks. It's facts already in evidence. I quote zeigler not you.


----------



## Spongy (Dec 22, 2018)

just pin that shit and move on.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 22, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> I'm sure you can pinpoint which fields should use mice and which fields shouldn't. I will choose to be more cautious and take things as they are presented to me. I'm sure the university of Oslo funds anything that sounds impressive.


Exactly. Skepticism is the way to go here. It is basically what this board is doing in this thread.  Do not accept things just because an authority figure is producing the results. Ask yourself why they're studying what they're studying, why they're using a certain methodology, why they're interpreting results a certain way, etc, etc. Skepticism is the key to knowledge here


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 22, 2018)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Exactly. Skepticism is the way to go here. It is basically what this board, admittedly mostly me, is doing in this thread.  Do not accept things just because an authority figure is producing the results. Ask yourself why they're studying what they're studying, why they're using a certain methodology, why they're interpreting results a certain way, etc, etc. Skepticism is the key to knowledge here



Dude, I'm saying the same thing. Even the article says that it *may* have the same effect on humans. I wasn't about to start taking steroids now, but I think a topic like this is worthy of being kept under surveillance, and I don't think that the fact that it started on mice is a reason to discard its importance and potential.


----------



## HijackedMyself (Dec 22, 2018)

Don't give a rats. Still no cure for balding! We dont need no ebola cure. Fix balding or I riot!


----------



## MonkeyBusiness (Dec 22, 2018)

HijackedMyself said:


> Don't give a rats. Still no cure for balding! We dont need no ebola cure. Fix balding or I riot!



https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180730090152.htm

Done. What next?


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 22, 2018)

MonkeyBusiness said:


> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180730090152.htm
> 
> Done. What next?



Lol, do you have a filter that only shows you studies on mice? Do mice even go bald?


----------



## MonkeyBusiness (Dec 22, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> Lol, do you have a filter that only shows you studies on mice? Do mice even go bald?



Well given that I AM a mouse, those are the studies I choose to read.
I know I haven't posted a photo of myself yet so here's one that may help clear things up:


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 22, 2018)

MonkeyBusiness said:


> Well given that I AM a mouse, those are the studies I choose to read.
> I know I haven't posted a photo of myself yet so here's one that may help clear things up:
> 
> View attachment 7040



Who's the guy to your left doing CrossFit?


----------



## MonkeyBusiness (Dec 22, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> Who's the guy to your left doing CrossFit?



Gotta have a spotter, right?


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 22, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> Who's the guy to your left doing CrossFit?



I think those are rats?

Also, that's clearly synthol on your delts and arms.


----------



## MonkeyBusiness (Dec 22, 2018)

PillarofBalance said:


> I think those are rats?



Just the androgenic effects there.


----------



## Merlin (Dec 22, 2018)

PillarofBalance said:


> Interesting. But it's mice.



I tend to agree with this.


----------



## ToolSteel (Dec 23, 2018)

zmartin32 said:


> The reason we start these kind of tests on mice is because we are, genetically, more than 90% similar to them.


We share 50% of our dna with bananas too, but taking one up the ass don’t make you gay.


----------



## Gadawg (Dec 23, 2018)

ToolSteel said:


> We share 50% of our dna with bananas too, but taking one up the ass don’t make you gay.



I sure hope not anyway.


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 23, 2018)

ToolSteel said:


> We share 50% of our dna with bananas too, but taking one up the ass don’t make you gay.


Only if you like it.


----------



## automatondan (Dec 23, 2018)

zmartin32 said:


> The reason we start these kind of tests on mice is because we are, genetically, more than 90% similar to them.



And we share a little over 60% genetically with a banana, so shouldn't the results be mostly similar pinning a banana with tren as a human...? 

And actually, if you take a look at non-coding genes, the genetic similarities between humans and mice goes down to about 50%...


----------



## MonkeyBusiness (Dec 23, 2018)

automatondan said:


> And we share a little over 60% genetically with a banana, so shouldn't the results be mostly similar pinning a banana with tren as a human...?
> 
> And actually, if you take a look at non-coding genes, the genetic similarities between humans and mice goes down to about 50%...



Why would you look only at non-coding genes?


----------



## automatondan (Dec 23, 2018)

I'm not suggesting you would look at only non-coding dna, I am just suggesting that 90% statistic is not actually as high as it's made out to be...


----------



## MonkeyBusiness (Dec 23, 2018)

Why would scientists continue to use mice if they were no good at showing us what could happen to human subjects?


----------



## automatondan (Dec 23, 2018)

MonkeyBusiness said:


> Why would scientists continue to use mice if they were no good at showing us what could happen to human subjects?



I think Zilla already explained that....


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 23, 2018)

MonkeyBusiness said:


> Why would scientists continue to use mice if they were no good at showing us what could happen to human subjects?


Look at post #38.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 23, 2018)

MonkeyBusiness said:


> Why would scientists continue to use mice if they were no good at showing us what could happen to human subjects?


Or look at post #10 if you want to know the truth from someone who got it directly from the researchers themselves. 

Short answer: 
- They're not allowed to use humans. 
- Everything else closer to us genetically is either hard to control, expensive or generates too much public sympathy re animal cruelty. 
- So, it's rodents or nothing. They chose rodents because they believe it's better than nothing. Also better than bananas so hey, that's cool.


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 23, 2018)

Yeah, look at post 10 if you want no sources and personal opinions from some guy with an Internet connection.


----------



## MonkeyBusiness (Dec 23, 2018)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Or look at post #10 if you want to know the truth from someone who got it directly from the researchers themselves.
> 
> Short answer:
> - They're not allowed to use humans.
> ...



1. They are allowed to use humans and a quick google search will reveal there are plenty of studies that have been done on various kinds of steroid users
2. Also not true. Rhesus monkeys are closer to us and are used frequently
3. Rodents are a legitimate model for a lot of things. Muscular development is probably especially relevant since it is a primitive characteristic of mamals i.e. the same building blocks act to build muscle in mice and men. So in fact, seeing what happens in mice is a great first step. Immune system and neurological conditions? Probably not so much but for basic muscular development - very applicable.


----------



## Jin (Dec 23, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> Yeah, look at post 10 if you want no sources and personal opinions from some guy with an Internet connection.



Bahahahahaha!


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 23, 2018)

MonkeyBusiness said:


> 1. They are allowed to use humans and a quick google search will reveal there are plenty of studies that have been done on various kinds of steroid users
> 2. Also not true. Rhesus monkeys are closer to us and are used frequently
> 3. Rodents are a legitimate model for a lot of things. Muscular development is probably especially relevant since it is a primitive characteristic of mamals i.e. the same building blocks act to build muscle in mice and men. So in fact, seeing what happens in mice is a great first step. Immune system and neurological conditions? Probably not so much but for basic muscular development - very applicable.



1) Specificity is the name of the game. Go look at the timeline involved for the study you posted in relation to a mouse's lifespan. Then calculate the equivalent to humans. That is why they were not allowed to use us in the study.  

2) Not as frequently as rodents. If you think Rhesus monkey are easier to control, cheaper, and generate less public sympathy then you are simply wrong. If you think I said they never use other, closer, animals then your point is invalid since I never said such a thing.

3) The muscle satellite cell regulation between mice & men is completely different so no, they do not have the exact same building blocks as us. I did cite a paper regarding this early in the thread but will gladly cite another in the morning if you wish for me to do so.
Also, they are horrible models for nutritional research and yet are still continually used.  That can only be explained by the reasons i've given above. Again, I will gladly cite plenty of references to support this in the morning if you wish for me to do so.

Sidenote: I have a degree in biology with a masters in human nutrition. Just in case we go back to ad hominem "you're just some Internet loser" level of responses


----------



## MonkeyBusiness (Dec 23, 2018)

MrRippedZilla said:


> 1) Specificity is the name of the game. Go look at the timeline involved for the study you posted in relation to a mouse's lifespan. Then calculate the equivalent to humans. That is why they were not allowed to use us in the study.
> 
> 2) Not as frequently as rodents. If you think Rhesus monkey are easier to control, cheaper, and generate less public sympathy then you are simply wrong. If you think I said they never use other, closer, animals then your point is invalid since I never said such a thing.
> 
> ...



1. Didn't attack you ad hominem at any point
2. Never claimed that these findings will carry over from mice to people
3. Never said mice are a good or even the best option

If you are not interested in this study and not interested in seeing further research, that's on you.
But saying it's all complete bullshit and that the study should never have been done is not productive and does not further the knowledge of anyone on this board.


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 23, 2018)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Your source in post 38 was a newspaper article citing the opinion of a guy who is responsible for looking after the animals at his institute. Not exactly a high quality form of objective evidence. Something to consider before going all ad hominem on me.



The article is not just about that. There are also tons of other qualified dudes in it, and the article has tons of sources of its own.

Everything he said is verifiable and reasonable. What you said, however, is purely speculation based on isolated evidence. That is in no way enough to dismiss the validity of the study, nor it is to verify it, which is why claims such as yours are rash at best.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 23, 2018)

MonkeyBusiness said:


> 1. Didn't attack you ad hominem at any point
> 2. Never claimed that these findings will carry over from mice to people
> 3. Never said mice are a good or even the best option
> 
> ...



- The ad hominem comment wasn't directed at you. I apologise if that wasn't clear.
- I never said that YOU claimed anything.
- Ditto. Something about Strawman. 

I never said it was complete bullshit. I never said it should never have been done. Strawman x4 now. 
Me pointing out why animal data is practically useless and going to great lengths to explain my position can actually further the knowledge of this board. 

I have been incredibly patient in the hope that this would be an educational discussion for those involved. I appear to have wasted my time. As I kind of knew I would. But I digress.
Fellow members of UG: this is why I don't take this approach often


----------



## ToolSteel (Dec 23, 2018)

We get an active zilla for once and these ****s waste it on a bullshit inapplicable mouse study. 
This is why we can’t have nice things.


----------



## Jin (Dec 23, 2018)

MrRippedZilla said:


> .
> .
> 
> 3) mice & men



Tell me about the rabbits Zilla.


----------



## ToolSteel (Dec 23, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> He spent the whole day arguing with himself about the differences between mice and humans.


You can take your attitude and **** right off. Zilla is a legitimate asset to this community, arguably one of the smartest and most well educated ones here. 
Stop acting like a butthurt bitch for a few min and you might learn something.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 23, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> He spent the whole day arguing with himself about the differences between mice and humans.





MonkeyBusiness said:


> Did you notice he went back and edited out placed where he was wrong?


Hilarious. The ad hominem attacks become more frequent. This always happens when someone has nothing left to offer in a debate and refuses to concede that they may be wrong about this. **** do I hate narrow minded idiots. My patience has ended. 

2 papers. One admitting that muscle satellite cell regulation between mice & humans is different. The other admitting that these "trained scientists" have no idea if any of the data they produce with mice models will actually transfer to humans. In other words, this data might indeed be practically useless. Oh and no, mice models are apparently not a good model for muscle growth:
https://www.ugbodybuilding.com/thre...ed-by-muscles?p=518046&viewfull=1#post518046
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2958137/

Now, I'm going to switch the focus to rodent models used in nutritional data because this is my zone. Good ****ing luck coming up with ANY sort of justification for this shitty data after this. Oh beyond the justifications I've offered a bunch of times already of course. 
Rodent models are used extensively for nutritional research despite the following limitations: 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16582096
- DNL contribution to triglyceride levels in rodents is around 60-70% where as it only contributes <5% in humans, which illustrates the COMPLETELY different metabolisms that we have. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14627435
- Human GKRP has a much greater inhibition of glucokinase than rodent GKRP and we also have a much higher affinity for fructose-6-phosphate, etc. These are key differences that illustrate why researcher have REPEATEDLY observed the fact that rodents are much more sensitive to & less capable of metabolizing certain things compared to us. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20218765
- Human adipose tissue has a much lower lipogenic capacity due to lower levels of a transcription factor known as SREBP-1c as seen in this study where they reached this conclusive by measuring GENE expression. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17628011
- We have "unprecedented major differences" as quoted in this study regarding liver X receptors (key regulators of genes involved in hepaticaly mediated homeostasis).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9665099
- We have vastly different distributions of BCAT, a key enzyme involved in protein metabolism, with rodents having 3x less BCAT activity in the liver and 13x more activity in muscle. This, along with major differences in BCKD capacity, explains why they have greater rates of BCAA oxidation compared to us. 

So, very clearly, rodent models ****ing suck if you actually want to learn about what might happen in humans. And yet, this shitty data gets pumped out constantly because of what I stated here. 

This is no longer a debate. You two are clearly way out of your depths on this. I have a scientific background and understand this stuff. You rely on Google. The difference is obvious and wide. 
I have explained the reality of the situation in the hope that those reading along may learn something even if you two are not capable of doing so. 
I am done responding seriously to this thread. I will take advantage of my position as moderator on this sub-forum to edit your future posts as I please in order to make them more amusing to my tastes


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 24, 2018)

Zeigler said:


> you over grown juiced up gorilla...



That's the nicest shit anyone ever said to me man, thanks


----------



## Spongy (Dec 24, 2018)

Sooooo...  As someone who actually works in the industry and has worked with pros I can honestly say when Zilla speaks, I listen...  We may not always see eye to eye on everything but he 100% always has the ability to back up what he says with research and I respect the hell out of that.  The dude has an absolutely uncanny ability for research and interpretation.

I credit him with breaking me out of my mindset and giving me the willingness to explore new methods when it comes to nutrition.  

Zilla has (subtly, thank God) called me out on some of my prior nutrition beliefs and rather than get all butthurt and defensive I took the time to LISTEN and RESEARCH and am a better trainer/nutritionist for it.

At this point this thread isn't even about mice because at the end of the day this study doesn't impact any of us in any way, shape, or form.  

It's an interesting study for sure,  but it's one study.  Just one.  

I'm starting to become a goddamn misanthropist myself.


----------



## John Ziegler (Dec 24, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> I'm a little teacup short and stout, here is my handle, here is my spout.



Spongy LMFAO


----------



## daddyboul (Dec 24, 2018)

Spongy said:


> I'm starting to become a goddamn misanthropist myself.



This really reminds me of https://youtu.be/yJD1Iwy5lUY?t=46
(you can stop watching after the vaccine part or not videos pretty funny regardless)


----------



## John Ziegler (Dec 24, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> I guess now we know why this forum has only regulars and troll



this is the by far the most popular, most informative, most interesting/entertaining, weightlifting website out there hands down.

 any attempts to undermine will fail


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 24, 2018)

Zeigler said:


> this is the by far the most popular, most informative, most interesting/entertaining, weightlifting website out there hands down.
> 
> any attempts to undermine will fail


I guess bodybuilding.com is blocked in your country.


----------



## Jin (Dec 24, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> I guess bodybuilding.com is blocked in your country.



This post doesn’t need any editing as this is the funniest thing anyone could come up with. 

BB dot com is literally one of my favorite jokes. 

Blind leading the blind in biblical proportions.


----------



## Straight30weight (Dec 24, 2018)

Flyingdragon said:


> My old gym had mice running around, not sure they were on the jewce, maybe thats where this study originated from.....


So does my current gym. And they're big ****ers.


----------



## Elivo (Dec 24, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> I guess bodybuilding.com is blocked in your country.



Hahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Spongy (Dec 24, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> I guess bodybuilding.com is blocked in your country.



This explains it.  You're a miscer.  Go say hi to Zyzz for me, brah.  Aesthetics!


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 24, 2018)

Spongy said:


> This explains it.  You're a miscer.  Go say hi to Zyzz for me, brah.  Aesthetics!


I had forgotten about that dude. He was cool. I don't get why he's related to this though.


----------



## Jin (Dec 24, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> I had forgotten about that dude. He was cool. I don't get why he's related to this though.



Case closed.


----------



## November Ajax (Dec 25, 2018)

Jin said:


> Case closed.


Well done, Inspector Gadget.


----------



## Enforcer (Dec 25, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> Well done, Inspector Gadget.



Break time for you...


----------



## ToolSteel (Dec 25, 2018)

Enforcer said:


> Break time for you...



*chokes on coffee*


WHO THE **** IS THIS GUY???


----------



## Metalhead1 (Dec 25, 2018)

ToolSteel said:


> *chokes on coffee*
> 
> 
> WHO THE **** IS THIS GUY???



My thoughts exactly...


----------



## Elivo (Dec 25, 2018)

Enforcer said:


> Break time for you...



Who the what now???????

confused....


----------



## Jin (Dec 25, 2018)

All the mods are just Bruce Banner. 

Meet The Hulk. 

(Watch your cornhole)


----------



## HijackedMyself (Dec 25, 2018)

Enforcer said:


> Break time for you...



WOAH Oh hello there officer!


----------



## RussianAnimal (Dec 31, 2018)

November Ajax said:


> I guess bodybuilding.com is blocked in your country.



Thrash website
Tried discussing TRT with the over 40 guys and banned topic
****ing idiots, you can tell they're all running gear and over 40-50s


----------

