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

MonkeyBusiness

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
249
Reaction score
109
Points
0
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

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
4,682
Points
238
I took tren for the first time years ago

Was never the same
 

John Ziegler

Elite
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
8,444
Reaction score
5,657
Points
283
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
 

Seeker

Veteran
SI Founding Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
8,859
Reaction score
10,718
Points
333
lol what a crock of shit. Sorry but this is complete stupid
 
Last edited:

Gadawg

The Tick
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
4,563
Reaction score
4,945
Points
193
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?
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
47
Reaction score
44
Points
0
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

Retired
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
1,706
Reaction score
3,522
Points
153
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.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
47
Reaction score
44
Points
0
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

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
20,402
Reaction score
18,204
Points
0
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

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,346
Reaction score
2,426
Points
238
Well shit i guess ill be the "first human volunteer" then, somrones got to take one for the team
.....
 

MrRippedZilla

Retired
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
1,706
Reaction score
3,522
Points
153
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 :)
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Veteran
SI Founding Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
8,859
Reaction score
10,718
Points
333
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

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
4,345
Reaction score
5,259
Points
238
Someone needs a Snickers

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.
 

New Threads

Top