Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Drug Mimics benefits of exercise

csuperman

member
A drug known as SR9009, which is currently under development at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI), increases the level of metabolic activity in skeletal muscles of mice. Treated mice become lean, develop larger muscles and can run much longer distances simply by taking SR9009, which mimics the effects of aerobic exercise. If similar effects can be obtained in people, the reversal of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and perhaps Type-II diabetes might be the very welcome result.The drug was developed by Professor Thomas Burris, who found that it was able to reduce obesity in populations of mice. It binds to and activates a protein called Rev-ErbAα, which influences fat and sugar burning in the liver, production of fat cells, and the body's inflammatory response.

Drug candidate SR9009 is a simple molecule that produces significant benefits (Image: The Scripps Research Institute)


Previous studies on mice lacking Rev-ErbAα showed decreased skeletal muscles, metabolic rate, and running capacity. Such mice appeared fated by their genetics to live as couch potatoes.
When Burris' group administered SR9009 to these mice to activate the Rev-Erbα protein, the results were remarkable. The metabolic rate in the skeletal muscles of the mice increased significantly. The treated mice were not allowed to exercise, but despite this they developed the ability to run about 50 percent further before being stopped by exhaustion.
“The animals actually get muscles like an athlete who has been training,” said Burris. “The pattern of gene expression after treatment with SR9009 is that of an oxidative-type muscle – again, just like an athlete.”
Burris noted that the beneficial effects of SR9009 on mice could carry over to people with metabolic syndrome or other conditions that reduce their ability to exercise.
"We do have indications that the effects of the drug are very similar to what you see with someone who has metabolic disorder who starts exercising," Burris stated in a Voice Of America interview. "They see a decrease in cholesterol, a decrease in triglycerides, an improvement in glucose metabolism. And a lot of this is due to transforming the muscle into a more metabolically active muscle."
If the effects of SR9009 on mice can safely be reproduced for people, the new drug may offer new therapies for obesity and its companions, metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Another area in which SR9009 or a similar drug may confer substantial benefit is to offset the loss of general muscle conditioning which occurs as a side effect of reduced activity caused by illness and/or aging. People most likely to enjoy these benefits include those suffering from severe arthritis, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and other conditions that restrict the ability to exercise.
Here's hoping that small-scale clinical tests on people begin soon
 
wow, always looking for a way to get something without working for it. What ever happened to that myostatin
stuff that was supposed to kind of do the same thing. Also wonder what would happen if this worked and you
took it AND exercised? I have to think, if it sounds too good to be true.... (you know the rest. lol)
 
wow, always looking for a way to get something without working for it. What ever happened to that myostatin
stuff that was supposed to kind of do the same thing. Also wonder what would happen if this worked and you
took it AND exercised? I have to think, if it sounds too good to be true.... (you know the rest. Lol)

anti-myostatin I believe turns off the gene that limits muscle growth where as this sr9009 deals with activating the gene that deals with metabolic rate influencers. I would take a-myostatin before I would take this sr9009 but with my luck the myostatin gene would be permanently turned off and I'd die of muscle over dose lmao kidding but this does sound promising for lazy people lol
 
Last edited:
Oh and good read csuperman ! Thnx for posting it bro ill add a copy to articles!
 
anti-myostatin I believe turns off the gene that limits muscle growth where as this sr9009 deals with activating the gene that deals with metabolic rate influencers. I would take a-myostatin before I would take this sr9009 but with my luck the myostatin gene would be permanently turned off and I'd die of muscle over dose lmao kidding but this does sound promising for lazy people lol

If you think about it, it might be very beneficial for older people as well. If anything acted like an anti-aging compound this stuff would be it.
 
If you think about it, it might be very beneficial for older people as well. If anything acted like an anti-aging compound this stuff would be it.


for sure, or it will give old people a heart attack lol
 
All I can say is after 20+ years in healthcare, I've been surprised more times than I can count on things that I said would never be...only to end up working with and utilizing the same things I called bullshit on. So, I say watch it as it develops. If its bullshit, it'll be obvious. If not, we'll all benefit from it for sure.
I love trying new shit!! :show:
 
It kinda is man. Give test to untrained college men and they gain about 20lbs of muscle with NO TRAINING. Done in a cpl studies. 600mgs a week equals about 20lbs of muscle WITH NO TRAINING over 16 weeks.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 
It kinda is man. Give test to untrained college men and they gain about 20lbs of muscle with NO TRAINING. Done in a cpl studies. 600mgs a week equals about 20lbs of muscle WITH NO TRAINING over 16 weeks.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

know few people who juiced w/o working out thinking they would turn into Mr America. Didnt gain any muscle. Just my opinion
but I think, and has been my experience, that you need to stimulate the muscle for it to grow. Also gotta eat to grow.
 
Well the studies have been done. In 2 diiff ones on college age men who didnt train they gained about 20lbs of MUSCLE on 600mgs test e a week for 16 weeks. One study avged just under and one just over 20lbs. Every other study done with me has shown test=muscle. Its just a reality. The response-at least to a certain level- is dose dependent also. Men given 100-200-300-etc... a week all gained more the more they were given. Not to a proportionate degree (600mgs a week was NOT twice as good as 300mgs per week) but 2 gained less than 3 which gainedess than 4, etc... hey just telling ya what the studies have shown.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 
If they write it, it must be true. I have seen the studies and I have seen the actual thing. Just saying
what I have actually seen compared to what I have read. been around this sport around 40 years.
No worries bro. This is what makes this board good. Having different opinions

(kiwidad, read some of your other post and you seem
knowledgable. Im not disagreeing w you, MANY
variables. No disrespect in my reply bro.)
 
Last edited:
It kinda is man. Give test to untrained college men and they gain about 20lbs of muscle with NO TRAINING. Done in a cpl studies. 600mgs a week equals about 20lbs of muscle WITH NO TRAINING over 16 weeks.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Yes sir. I have read the studies. And, I'm not discrediting them or any statements your making. I can only speak from personal experience.
I have taken the exact same doses while remaining on a strict workout regimen with excellent gains. And, on the flip side of that. With the same dose minus the strict workout, I actually lost weight and muscele size/density.

This is only my opinion and personal experience. The work must be put in....
 
You are coming from a point kf a trained individual... its a different animal. If nothing changes but test is added anyone will vain muscle. If someone goes from training and eating perfect and an already advanced size and strength to not training and being in a deficit then I doubt adding test will do anything (in regards to gaining muscle but you'll still lose muscle slower than you would without it).

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 
If they write it, it must be true. I have seen the studies and I have seen the actual thing. Just saying
what I have actually seen compared to what I have read. been around this sport around 40 years.
No worries bro. This is what makes this board good. Having different opinions

(kiwidad, read some of your other post and you seem
knowledgable. Im not disagreeing w you, MANY
variables. No disrespect in my reply bro.)

I love differing opinions fellas. If we all agreed on everything, This board would have no real purpose. We are all different with minds that work on a whole other spectrum a lot of the time. And, on the same note, our bodies respond different as well. Some faster than others. Some slower. I just tend to allow personal experience my mind, body and soul....
Shit, that was deep....Get your boots on boys.....;)
 
I love differing opinions fellas. If we all agreed on everything, This board would have no real purpose. We are all different with minds that work on a whole other spectrum a lot of the time. And, on the same note, our bodies respond different as well. Some faster than others. Some slower. I just tend to allow personal experience my mind, body and soul....
Shit, that was deep....Get your boots on boys.....;)

the people I have seen get no results were people who were too lazy to train and thought they would train
when they juiced but still were too lazy and didnt hit the gym. They were untrained and only difference was
the test. One was 250mg a week I think and other was around 500mg week. They were pissed after because
they didnt get any muscle. (and it showed, lol) Only two examples and like Austin says, everyones different.
Hey for years the "studies" and Dr.s wrote and said steriods didnt work. We all knew it was bullshit cus we
saw with our own eyes the results. (back in the 70's)
 
the people I have seen get no results were people who were too lazy to train and thought they would train
when they juiced but still were too lazy and didnt hit the gym. They were untrained and only difference was
the test. One was 250mg a week I think and other was around 500mg week. They were pissed after because
they didnt get any muscle. (and it showed, lol) Only two examples and like Austin says, everyones different.
Hey for years the "studies" and Dr.s wrote and said steriods didnt work. We all knew it was bullshit cus we
saw with our own eyes the results. (back in the 70's)

Amen Brutha!! I get asked all the time, "What's the best cycle to run?", "Best combination of this and that?", "How old should you be before trying "The Juice?", ETC. ETC. ETC........
First things First: Is your Diet in check?? Is your training in check and fucking consistent?? IF NOT, my answer for 99% of those asking if they should try Test is not only no, BUT "Hell No"

Period ;)
 
It kinda is man. Give test to untrained college men and they gain about 20lbs of muscle with NO TRAINING. Done in a cpl studies. 600mgs a week equals about 20lbs of muscle WITH NO TRAINING over 16 weeks.
Just like the 20 week anadrol study 150mg drol/day for 20 weeks in no trained HIV patients gained 17lbs in those 20wks
 
Back
Top