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

[zmartin32]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[MrRippedZilla]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[John Ziegler]

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]

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]

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]

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."

“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[November Ajax]

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]

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.