1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Potentially Significant Fitness Drug Development

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by ckparrothead, Jul 31, 2008.

  1. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080731/hl_nm/exercise_pills_dc

    A while ago we heard about the manipulation of a gene in mice called PPAR-delta, which allowed mice to run further than other mice and also stay lean despite a high fat diet.

    Drug researchers have been attempting to find drugs that could mimic these effects, rather than having to genetically engineer the gene.

    They came up with two compounds, among many, that produced significant results. One, which goes by the name GW1516, is supposed to manipulate the PPAR-delta gene, but it actually had zero affect on normal, unexercised mice' ability to run far distances. Not even a percent, says Howard Hughes Medical Institute researcher Ronald Evans. But, when they decided to have the mice that took the drug and the control group mice undergo a period of exercise, they found that the mice that had the drug ended up running 68 percent further than the mice that had no drug.

    Yowsa.

    Another compound, AICAR, takes a different approach. They used what they know about a compound called AMP-activate protein kinase (AMPK), and created the AICAR compound which mimics AMP so the muscle thinks it's burning fat. After four weeks of receiving the drug, the mice were behaving as if they'd been getting exercise. They ran 44 percent further than other mice.

    I think the idea is that the AICAR compound is a key to allowing PPAR-delta drugs like GW1516 to work. I think that's the idea, anyway. Remember that when the mice just took GW1516 and didn't exercise, there was no difference, but once you give them some exercise it becomes clear that GW1516 enhanced their results. The AICAR compound may be a way of simulating that exercise so that the mice see results even if they've gotten no exercise.

    Anyway the researcher is not affiliated with a drug company, and already he's working on reliable tests for the compounds because evidently they are relatively easy compounds to synthesize, already available on an experimental basis, and that means athletes could get hold of them as quickly as in time for the 2008 Olympics. They're hoping to have a reliable test detection available in time to test the Olympic athletes' pee and blood for the compound retroactively.

    If athletes could already be using this stuff, it must be relatively close to being available, I would think. I wonder when a major drug company will buy this stuff up and begin some Phase I and Phase II trials on it.
     
  2. JCowScot

    JCowScot So funky the dead dance

    4,200
    1,825
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    FLA USA
    I wonder how long it will be before we see ppl die from dehydration and heat exhaustion due to the fact of them being able to exercise longer. :no: This looks pretty cool, I just think ppl will end up abusing it before using it (properly).
     
  3. Bruzer

    Bruzer New Member

    1,015
    469
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    Idaho
    Yea I agree it would be abused. Though if used properly could help alot of people. I would think it will need to be doctor subscribed have then test you and figure out how much you should be able to take before cutting you off.
     
    JCowScot likes this.
  4. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    11,035
    4,419
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I see another additon to the NFL's Banned Substance list.
     
  5. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Damn skippy.
     
  6. MiamiMan147

    MiamiMan147 Season Ticket Holder

    209
    69
    0
    Nov 26, 2007
    If we keep banning every medical advance from professional sports that gives athletes an advantage, eventually Joe Average is going to be stronger and faster than any NFL player. It's inevitable that science will eventually overtake nature in it's ability to create better athletes. Already we've seen a man with prosthetic legs being banned from the Olympics because they were deemed an unfair advantage.
     
  7. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,560
    4,133
    113
    May 9, 2008
    I thought they let him in?
     
  8. JCowScot

    JCowScot So funky the dead dance

    4,200
    1,825
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    FLA USA
    No doubt it could help a lot of people. Asthmatics, lung cancer survivors, people who are on chemo- anyone who has problems doing any kind of extended strenuous activity- it could most definitely help them to lead a more regular life. The AICAR could help with our national obesity problem.

    Even still, I foresee both becoming an abused panacea for a segment of the population, and a PES (performance...etc) for those in competitive athletic arenas(cycling, anyone??:shifty: ). The good thing is, if it ends up working as good as it appears to, a lot of people are going to be much better off.:up: And that, I think, outweighs the potential negatives that will naturally follow with abuse/improper use.
     
  9. Bruzer

    Bruzer New Member

    1,015
    469
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    Idaho
    I completely agree, no matter what is ever made it will always be a abused in some way. Though like you said the potential to help so many people is far greater than the negatives that comes with people abusing it. Those people choose to abuse it they will suffer consequences. The people who have no choice in their problem that could use this deserve it. Its something that could give them a more regular life as you said.
     
    JCowScot likes this.
  10. BigDogsHunt

    BigDogsHunt Enough talk...prove it!

    22,422
    9,819
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    DC Metro Area

    They did, he didnt qualify.....so you wont see him in China!

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/beijing_olympics/story/0,27313,24033386-5014104,00.html

     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2008
  11. Lab3003

    Lab3003 Golden era

    3,381
    1,106
    0
    Nov 23, 2007
    Bal Harbour, FL
    I'm not in the anti-steroids camp. I like homeruns. I like touchdowns. The side-effects are dramatically overblown. If taken in the presence of an endocrinologist, there's no reason for professional athletes NOT to take steroids. In fact, I'd say its medically negligent to keep away the means for athletes who destroy their bodies the means to protect their ligaments, bones and muscles.
     
  12. JCowScot

    JCowScot So funky the dead dance

    4,200
    1,825
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    FLA USA
    When taken properly, ie-under the guidance and supervision of a knowledgeable physician, as you suggested. If not they're not used properly and monitored, the side-effects are most definitely NOT overblown and very deadly.

    Just wanting to clarify that for those who might misunderstand your post.:up: (As it is, I wholeheartedly agree w/ you.)
     

Share This Page