On the radio this morning, I heard a segment on a substance, tested so far only on rats, that appears to cause muscle tissue to bulk up. The rats given this drug lost weight and increased muscle mass while not increasing activity.
Assume that this can be shown to work on humans and has negligible side-effects, would you take it? According to the researcher who was interviewed, there are philosophical objections: you shouldn’t be permitted to have six-pack abs unless you worked for them. In fact, she suggested that people would have to find new ways to compete (she suggested elaborate hair styles).
Note that I’m 65 and my body has already begun the “losing muscle tissue no matter how hard you work out” process, so for me this would be a staving off deterioration thing.
Such results have been claimed before. The “harmless” part is always difficult to prove. But assuming it is harmless…
No. But I’m not sure why.
Maybe it’s the remains of my Judeo-Christian upbringing. If the substance became available without a prescription (and legally), maybe I’d reconsider.
Maybe my health is too complicated/confusing at this point, and I don’t want to complicate it further.
Maybe, if everybody starts taking this, the economy will collapse as all the guys stay home to take pictures of their torsos (torsii?) in the mirror and publish them on Bodyspace.
Probably not, I’ve got a decent amount of muscle already and don’t need to bulk up anymore. If it made the muscles stronger w/o making them larger then yeah. The weight loss aspect sounds nice.
I’m waiting for myostatin inhibitors to hit the market, those should be fun to see how people use those. I can imagine bodybuilders combining those with their cocktail of steroids, insulin and growth hormone. However humans seem (so far) to be genetically limited to a certain level of muscle mass. Almost no lean bodybuilders end up with arms bigger than 22-23" no matter their genetics or what drugs they take.
Myostatin is a protein that slows muscle growth, if you block it muscle growth occurs much more rapidly. Here is a photo of a bull that was bred to not make myostatin.
Either way, these medical tools would be useful for the disabled, elderly, those with wasting diseases (muscular dystrophy, HIV, burn victims, etc) so it isn’t just vanity.
Hell ya. I’ve spent my entire life at the gym just to stay fit. I’m exhausted and I could use a break. I’d miss the feel good endorphins from a hard workout though.
I’m not sure which of the above suggested candidates was the one that was discussed. She mentioned that the first candidates for the drug would be people handicapped in such a way that they cannot get normal exercise. But you can be sure that, once approved, its use would spread.
Studies in humans will, of course, be critical. I may be indolent, but I am not an indolent rat.
I wouldn’t when I was young and closing in on 50 I still wouldn’t.
I’d love for it to be available when I’m 70 or so just to improve the quality of life, not extend it. My father is sick and has lost so much muscle he can’t even stand, it’s a very hard thing to watch
Actually, this is sort of my objection to taking said drug.
There is a line beyond which the ‘point’ of being human becomes lost. If one pill keeps us strong, and another pill keeps us happy, then what’s the point of striving for anything?
I draw the line at non-necessary, pharmaceutical body enhancements.
As it stands now, I take creatine and protein on a regular basis. I’m working on improving my diet. I’ve even considered steroids. In my mind, it would just be another “supplement” with which I would not have an issue.
I’d take it as a “yay! I get to eat mo and not gain weight!” thing. I do like to eat. And I would love for such a thing to be available for my parents as they age.
