There seem to be basically two arguments against "exercise pills."
1) Self-discipline is virtuous in and of itself. We shouldn't develop alternative ways to control weight and/or maintain muscle tone without controlling food intake and exercise, because that undermines the tangible rewards of virtue.
2) Biology is extremely complicated, and the drug that keeps you compact and muscular in your 40s might end up promoting the growth of cancerous tumors all over your body in your 60s. (As happened to the older mice who received high doses of GW501516.)
I don't agree at all with the first argument. The second one is alarming enough that I'm not going to be the first or even the millionth person in line to obtain these compounds through grey-market channels and dose myself. Similarly, I would love a drug cocktail that prevents the unwanted physical effects of aging, but I'll let other people blaze a trail with human trials (clinical or self-experimentation.)
I find #1 funny, in that appetite and "self-discipline" seem to be biologically inversely correlated in at least some sense. Boost dopamine (such as with the old amphetamine-based "diet pills"), and you get more control over your impulses... but also your appetite goes away, so you don't even need to exert control over it. Lower dopamine (such as with a typical antipsychotic), and you get hungry, but also find it harder to override your impulses in general. (If you're curious, this is thought to help in psychosis because "skepticism"/"being realistic" is one of the lower-level impulses that dopamine overrides.)
If self-discipline were virtuous, would the "best" exercise pill be one that only enhances self-discipline (with no stimulant-like side-effects)—and thus makes it easy to be one of those people who just "decide to exercise and eat healthy" and end up doing so? Or would people likely still consider that "cheating" in some sense? And if so, do you think such people would be able to be convinced at that point that they're literally just measuring the "virtue" of people's genetics, rather than of their choices?
3) There other benefits to exercise, including stretching and loosening joints and ligaments, building coordination and body awareness, mental benefits, etc. Sweating has benefits as well. I'd find it really hard to imagine that some pill that mucks with metabolism or muscle growth or some other single dimension would cover even a small portion of the benefits of exercise.
What if some of the commonly known positive effects of exercise, such as battling depression, are actually psychological effects of that discipline and motivation rather than physical fitness? I find it hard to argue this can't be the case.
I think 2a is 20 minutes per day of exercise produces known benefits with known risks. It's not like it's an exercise pill or nothing. It's crazy to me that people are willing to take drugs that would require 70 year clinical trials to understand their safety rather than putting in 20 minutes per day of work...
1.) People who exercise because they want to look good or like it are no more virtuous. That is pretty much an equivalent of saying that if you spend hours choosing just the right dress and makeup, you are more virtuous.
I exercise because I enjoy it and partly to look better. I really don't think it makes me more virtuous then, say, fat people who don't exercises, but are overall nicer or more helping to people around then I am. Or simply people who read more book then I am or people who teach kids in their free time or whatever.
A better argument against this line of development is that it is demonstrably expensive and low-yield.
There are far better R&D approaches to maintaining health over the course of aging, but they get a tiny fraction of the effort lavished on exercise and calorie restriction mimetics, despite the continued absence of concrete therapeutic outcomes resulting from all of that investment.
The reason for this is probably that exercise and calorie restriction mimetic research dovetails well with the real underlying scientific goal of mapping metabolism, where as better approaches tend to bypass this need for mapping, focusing instead on well-known forms of damage that cause age-related decline.
There is another argument, these pills don't seem to do anything for bone density even though the article suggested it for astronauts lower bone density - it appears to be an entirely muscular effect.
If one has to exercise to help build bone density anyways ( a concern for anyone who wants to have a healthy life after 40) the pill if it worked would only eliminate one component of an exercise regime.
I still lean on item 1 being the most correct. I know modern society is built on a "do anything" approach but in reality we're under the gun of biology and evolution and as such only certain behavioral patterns are actually successful. I found losing weight and staying fit got a lot easier when I focused on discipline instead of quick fixes like Atkins. There's an art to pushing back on that neurological trigger craving that dopamine shot and it can be learned. (Of course, if a pill comes out to help you with that trigger, then we're golden). Or more practically, a way to produce leptin and ghrelin in the body so hunger and craving response goes way down.
I'm not saying I'm "against" the pill, but no pill is going to magically erase 1,000+ calories of over-eating or clear out all the awful things excess sugar and other carbs may do. It may certainly mitigate them, but like the person I know who got lapband surgery eventually found out, his eating just adapted to his new limitations (ice cream, sweets, etc dont take much room and are very high energy) and he gained weight after a while. We'll pop the pill, eat like pigs, and be at the same weight or higher after a while.
I imagine if this becomes a mass market medicine, its effective applications will be outside of weight control and more towards helping people achieve a certain level of fitness especially those with limited mobility or illness. Its not something you're going to buy able to buy over the counter for 'free' workouts. The same way you can't buy testosterone or steroids OTC.
The situation with GW was really interesting, the study had incredibly high doses, but I don't doubt that they had reasons for pulling the drug, although I'm sure WADA pressure didn't help.
with regards to #2, it is controlling its use that will be problematic. seems far too often new methods to reduce fats and sugars in foods becomes a inhibitor remover for too many.
remember the horror stories from olestra's introduction, people shoving tons of chips because they were guilt free down their maws only to have digestive issues
"After the age of forty, all of us, even the athletic, lose about eight per cent of our muscle mass each decade, with a further fifteen-per-cent decline between the ages of seventy and eighty. "
This has not been my experience. I have added pretty substantial muscle mass between the ages of 48 and 55 with fairly conventional weight lifting and diet with no PED's. My back squat has gone from 185 to 385 (pounds)and my deadlift from 265 to 465. 40 seems way too early to start packing it in.
> In animal trials, there are dose equivalence calculations you have to do first. Since rats were used in the study you have to divide their dosage by 6.2 for the human equivalence. So the 5 mg/kg/day for males and 3 mg/kg/day for females works out to 0.806 mg/kg/day and 0.484 mg/kg/day, respectively. For example, a 115 lb female would have an equivalent dosage of ~25 mg. That's a whole lot closer to the doses some of you are taking.
>
In the study, cancer was seen even in rats on the lowest dosage. For all we know, they could have gotten cancer at lower doses too.
My biggest barrier to staying healthy isn't motivation or willpower, it's time. A lot of us waste a lot of time sitting in offices when more hours there don't make us more effective or productive at what we do. Give me some of that time back to go on 2-3 hour bike rides every day, and I suspect I'd be happier, and find some way to be more productive.
I have a feeling such a pill would go the way of testosterone which, even though it could be safely administered to people who don't necessarily have "Low T" to positive ends, is still only a treatment for those who desperately need it. People on the low end of whatever arbitrary, non-standard serum testosterone scale often don't get treatment because they are technically "normal", which completely disregards the benefit someone can see from being brought to the high-end of the scale. Likewise, an exercise pill might only be given to those who are morbidly obese rather than mostly sedentary office workers who would rather get more work done than dedicate another hour every day towards mindless exercise.
> Mice that had been given large doses of the drug over the course of two years (a lifetime for a lab rodent) developed cancer at a higher rate than their dope-free peers. Tumors appeared all over their bodies, from the tongue to the testes.
> ...
> Since then, he has developed a less potent version that he hopes will also be less toxic.
So yeah, this isn't exactly ready for mass consumption.
Whereas the link between anabolic steroids and cancer is pretty weak. If someone is interested in getting fit (or fit looking) with pills, we already have some pretty good stuff out there.
This is quite the generalization, plenty of drugs have negative side effects in high doses (see: tylenol). It doesn't mean they aren't still widely useful in small ones. If anything we need to learn more about the drug, just like any other.
> The combination of effects made 516 seem like a promising treatment for what’s known as “metabolic syndrome,” a cluster of symptoms—including obesity, high blood pressure, and high blood sugar—that is a precursor to heart disease and diabetes. More than a third of adult Americans are estimated to have metabolic syndrome, which made 516’s potential profits seem rather attractive.
The dangers of rampant heart disease and type-2 diabetes can't be understated either in this context.
Also the next paragraph notes it only caused cancer in later stages of the mouses life which may translate to 60-70yrs in humans. It's possible there are potential trade offs still at lower doses for people in their 50s at a high risk of dying from heart failure.
Whenever numskull journalists write the phrase "exercise pill" they're talking about growth hormone secretagogues or anabolics. This one is an anabolic SARM; a particularly nasty one that seems to be pretty carcinogenic.
Note that people who take SARMs or regular anabolic steroids look pretty good, but they're certainly not achieving any real health benefits. Long term use nets you cardiovascular problems and eventual chemical castration.
Anyone who would tout taking this as some kind of supplement is insane. Soylent arguably more healthy.
There's a lot of discussion here about "virtue" and "self-discipline" - I'd like to offer an interesting possibility that "discipline" is not about motivation or willpower, but is actually an intellectual exercise of avoiding motivated reasoning in the mind.
The simplest example: I resolve to wake up in the morning to run before work. However, when I wake, I feel exhausted. "You need more rest; you can always make it up tomorrow," I might think to myself. If I accept this as a reason to stay in bed, I am falling to motivated reasoning; I am believing as fact an excuse made by my mind looking for a way out of discomfort. I can rest easy when I believe my excuse. I can rest easy when I can say "I have plenty of discipline, I just needed to rest today."
Exercise is merely one of many ways to illuminate your logical fallacies to yourself. The fallacy of motivated reasoning is what causes alternative facts - the mind can always come up with a reason to avoid the discomfort of getting out of bed, just like it can come up with reasons to avoid the discomfort of saying "I was wrong."
I imagine that, if successful, this could make more money than Viagra. I'd happily pay several hundred dollars a month to have a fit body without ever exercising.
I knew this was about GW50156. A version of this article has been published every six months or so in various outlets. GW50156 is widely available via research chemical sites and various underground bodybuilders/powerlifters/athletes are using it + peptides + various other drugs to skirt AAS testing.
I think you will find the self-reported side effects and gains of GW50156 to be.... much different than stories like this one portray.
It is amazing the chemicals and hormones that bodybuilders will put into their body to build muscle or cut body fat. They really are the original body hackers.
One of the things that exercise does for you is it helps your body take out the trash. I see no means for a pill to replicate that function. Without that, it seems pretty obvious that there will be negative long term consequences to getting your "exercise" in pill form.
This is how this works:
Lymph is basically the clear part of the blood with stuff like red blood cells removed. One piece of the lymphatic system is powered by the heart. But lymph is also called interstitial fluid. It exists throughout the body. It circulates, moving back and forth between tissues and your blood.
When it moves back to your blood, it takes waste products with it, leaving behind cleaner, healthier tissue. These wastes mostly get removed when you urinate.
Physical activity dramatically increases the rate at which lymph gets moved back to the blood. I have seen figures anywhere from 3 to 8 times as fast as when you are sedentary.
Walking a whole lot, sometimes hours a day, has played a big role in my healing journey. I believe this increased cleansing process is a key detail as to why that has helped.
Before the exercise pill, it’d be good to have a pill which helps with exercise. For instance strengthens the ligaments without destroying flexibility too much. Or boosts endurance without having horrible side effects, stuff like that. Seems like an easier problem than an all encompassing “exercise pill”.
If you look at sports like Olympic weightlifting and gymnastics, you'll see that strength and flexibility aren't fundamentally opposed. You can develop both concurrently.
Fascinating -- as much as I enjoy to be active and stretch out, I imagine the benefits of sustained exertion could be entirely replaced by an artificial mechanism. This would be a nice time saver, and if it provides the same good feelings that you get after a good workout, then health in an active person could even be improved by preventing the need for heavy exertion and focusing on stretching and movement. This could reduce joint stresses and put more hours in the day. Very excited to see the effects of this drugs in humans.
>>“If you’ve been to London, then you know,” Bill Hayes, a writer and photographer who is at work on a history of exercise, told me. “The driver sits at the front and drives the bus, and the conductor hops on and off the bus and climbs up and down the stairs taking tickets and getting people to their seats.”
Er, not for a long while. It's all Oyster cards now. Bus conductors went ages ago.
Well, that kind of reminds me how in the 90s the media published articles saying that Prozac is about to make sadness disappear, and our society is about to turn into a Brave New World. Turns out it was just stealth marketing.
[+] [-] philipkglass|8 years ago|reply
1) Self-discipline is virtuous in and of itself. We shouldn't develop alternative ways to control weight and/or maintain muscle tone without controlling food intake and exercise, because that undermines the tangible rewards of virtue.
2) Biology is extremely complicated, and the drug that keeps you compact and muscular in your 40s might end up promoting the growth of cancerous tumors all over your body in your 60s. (As happened to the older mice who received high doses of GW501516.)
I don't agree at all with the first argument. The second one is alarming enough that I'm not going to be the first or even the millionth person in line to obtain these compounds through grey-market channels and dose myself. Similarly, I would love a drug cocktail that prevents the unwanted physical effects of aging, but I'll let other people blaze a trail with human trials (clinical or self-experimentation.)
[+] [-] derefr|8 years ago|reply
If self-discipline were virtuous, would the "best" exercise pill be one that only enhances self-discipline (with no stimulant-like side-effects)—and thus makes it easy to be one of those people who just "decide to exercise and eat healthy" and end up doing so? Or would people likely still consider that "cheating" in some sense? And if so, do you think such people would be able to be convinced at that point that they're literally just measuring the "virtue" of people's genetics, rather than of their choices?
[+] [-] colordrops|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lagadu|8 years ago|reply
The second is very real and of course requires us to tread very carefully but shouldn't be a reason to stop investigating something.
[+] [-] arnarbi|8 years ago|reply
What if some of the commonly known positive effects of exercise, such as battling depression, are actually psychological effects of that discipline and motivation rather than physical fitness? I find it hard to argue this can't be the case.
[+] [-] x0x0|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] watwut|8 years ago|reply
I exercise because I enjoy it and partly to look better. I really don't think it makes me more virtuous then, say, fat people who don't exercises, but are overall nicer or more helping to people around then I am. Or simply people who read more book then I am or people who teach kids in their free time or whatever.
[+] [-] reasonattlm|8 years ago|reply
There are far better R&D approaches to maintaining health over the course of aging, but they get a tiny fraction of the effort lavished on exercise and calorie restriction mimetics, despite the continued absence of concrete therapeutic outcomes resulting from all of that investment.
The reason for this is probably that exercise and calorie restriction mimetic research dovetails well with the real underlying scientific goal of mapping metabolism, where as better approaches tend to bypass this need for mapping, focusing instead on well-known forms of damage that cause age-related decline.
[+] [-] coldtea|8 years ago|reply
Makes sense (not agreeing). The whole culture of modern society is all about not agreeing with such arguments.
That is, finding any idea of value in some authenticity that shouldn't be replicated technologically, silly.
[+] [-] stevenwoo|8 years ago|reply
If one has to exercise to help build bone density anyways ( a concern for anyone who wants to have a healthy life after 40) the pill if it worked would only eliminate one component of an exercise regime.
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|8 years ago|reply
I'm not saying I'm "against" the pill, but no pill is going to magically erase 1,000+ calories of over-eating or clear out all the awful things excess sugar and other carbs may do. It may certainly mitigate them, but like the person I know who got lapband surgery eventually found out, his eating just adapted to his new limitations (ice cream, sweets, etc dont take much room and are very high energy) and he gained weight after a while. We'll pop the pill, eat like pigs, and be at the same weight or higher after a while.
I imagine if this becomes a mass market medicine, its effective applications will be outside of weight control and more towards helping people achieve a certain level of fitness especially those with limited mobility or illness. Its not something you're going to buy able to buy over the counter for 'free' workouts. The same way you can't buy testosterone or steroids OTC.
[+] [-] deepnotderp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ycombinete|8 years ago|reply
I agree with the premise: "Self-discipline is virtuous per se."
I don't agree with the argument that follows: "We shouldn't develop alternates."
[+] [-] Shivetya|8 years ago|reply
remember the horror stories from olestra's introduction, people shoving tons of chips because they were guilt free down their maws only to have digestive issues
[+] [-] nsxwolf|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saiya-jin|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] imoldfella|8 years ago|reply
This has not been my experience. I have added pretty substantial muscle mass between the ages of 48 and 55 with fairly conventional weight lifting and diet with no PED's. My back squat has gone from 185 to 385 (pounds)and my deadlift from 265 to 465. 40 seems way too early to start packing it in.
[+] [-] xpaulbettsx|8 years ago|reply
The important bit:
> In animal trials, there are dose equivalence calculations you have to do first. Since rats were used in the study you have to divide their dosage by 6.2 for the human equivalence. So the 5 mg/kg/day for males and 3 mg/kg/day for females works out to 0.806 mg/kg/day and 0.484 mg/kg/day, respectively. For example, a 115 lb female would have an equivalent dosage of ~25 mg. That's a whole lot closer to the doses some of you are taking.
> In the study, cancer was seen even in rats on the lowest dosage. For all we know, they could have gotten cancer at lower doses too.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bbarn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ravenstine|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JamesBarney|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thomascgalvin|8 years ago|reply
> ...
> Since then, he has developed a less potent version that he hopes will also be less toxic.
So yeah, this isn't exactly ready for mass consumption.
[+] [-] kolbe|8 years ago|reply
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3827559/
[+] [-] dmix|8 years ago|reply
> The combination of effects made 516 seem like a promising treatment for what’s known as “metabolic syndrome,” a cluster of symptoms—including obesity, high blood pressure, and high blood sugar—that is a precursor to heart disease and diabetes. More than a third of adult Americans are estimated to have metabolic syndrome, which made 516’s potential profits seem rather attractive.
The dangers of rampant heart disease and type-2 diabetes can't be understated either in this context.
Also the next paragraph notes it only caused cancer in later stages of the mouses life which may translate to 60-70yrs in humans. It's possible there are potential trade offs still at lower doses for people in their 50s at a high risk of dying from heart failure.
Not to mention tweaking the drug itself.
[+] [-] ineedasername|8 years ago|reply
1) Causes cancer. Of, like, everything. TFA put it more eloquently: "From the tongue to the testes"
2) So, shelved.
3) Less toxic versions under research; color me interested! (you know, everything causes cancer anyway)
4) Social implications!
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|8 years ago|reply
Missing from the list that followed has: people wearing VR goggles (e.g., Oculus Rift) and never leaving their bed or sofa.
The Matrix isn't as far fetched as it used to be :)
[+] [-] kolbe|8 years ago|reply
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101
[+] [-] corpMaverick|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andai|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] comicjk|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomanybeersies|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Domenic_S|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scottlocklin|8 years ago|reply
Anyone who would tout taking this as some kind of supplement is insane. Soylent arguably more healthy.
[+] [-] totallynotcool|8 years ago|reply
That's a little over the top. Proper dosing- TRT levels- and regular blood work can keep some of the issues at bay.
[+] [-] AElsinore77|8 years ago|reply
The simplest example: I resolve to wake up in the morning to run before work. However, when I wake, I feel exhausted. "You need more rest; you can always make it up tomorrow," I might think to myself. If I accept this as a reason to stay in bed, I am falling to motivated reasoning; I am believing as fact an excuse made by my mind looking for a way out of discomfort. I can rest easy when I believe my excuse. I can rest easy when I can say "I have plenty of discipline, I just needed to rest today."
Exercise is merely one of many ways to illuminate your logical fallacies to yourself. The fallacy of motivated reasoning is what causes alternative facts - the mind can always come up with a reason to avoid the discomfort of getting out of bed, just like it can come up with reasons to avoid the discomfort of saying "I was wrong."
[+] [-] zeveb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kolbe|8 years ago|reply
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101
[+] [-] icelancer|8 years ago|reply
I think you will find the self-reported side effects and gains of GW50156 to be.... much different than stories like this one portray.
[+] [-] gadders|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mz|8 years ago|reply
This is how this works:
Lymph is basically the clear part of the blood with stuff like red blood cells removed. One piece of the lymphatic system is powered by the heart. But lymph is also called interstitial fluid. It exists throughout the body. It circulates, moving back and forth between tissues and your blood.
When it moves back to your blood, it takes waste products with it, leaving behind cleaner, healthier tissue. These wastes mostly get removed when you urinate.
Physical activity dramatically increases the rate at which lymph gets moved back to the blood. I have seen figures anywhere from 3 to 8 times as fast as when you are sedentary.
Walking a whole lot, sometimes hours a day, has played a big role in my healing journey. I believe this increased cleansing process is a key detail as to why that has helped.
[+] [-] 0xbear|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maaaats|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sn9|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rjeli|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icelancer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lend000|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gadders|8 years ago|reply
Er, not for a long while. It's all Oyster cards now. Bus conductors went ages ago.
[+] [-] jax711|8 years ago|reply
Yes I know it gives cancer, but the doses that were used in the study for mice were astronomical. It's the equivalent of doing the ld50 of a drug.
[+] [-] KKKKkkkk1|8 years ago|reply