The Hulk a possibility?

Originally posted by Combat_Guru
Try depleting your myostatin proteins and genetically engineer your body to produce an enzyme called phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinases, or PEPCK-C for short.

When you run you'll gain speed over time because of your adrenaline, you'll be extremely muscular, I mean, you'll have twice the muscle mass you have now, you'll be more sexually active, you'll live longer, and your muscles won't get sore.

This is what happened to mice.

*cough*

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
*cough*

Men who lack Myostatin build muscle easier than men who don't.

And Mice are very similar to humans genetically. In the articles I read, the scientists say this would work on people.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A world of bodybuilders doesn't particularly appeal to me,

It doesn't appeal to most people. That's why a lot of gyms are implementing a "no grunting" policy...it scares away the old ladies and such....that is another topic, though.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
and as probably already mentioned cardiac hypertrophy isn't exactly a plus.

YEA!!! Some one read my post...it wasn't a total waste.

Anyway...

Cardiac hypertrophy doesn't have to even be a variable in "Hulkitizing" people...SARMs and myostatin inhibitors immediately come to mind. There's probably cardiac sparing anabolics out there as well.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't know of blue skies grants that would fund a research programme into muscular enhancement for the sole sake of muscular enhancement of already healthy individuals, and if I did I'd think it was a tremendous waste of money considering how underfunded biomedical research as a whole is, how expensive it is and how many disorders afflict large numbers of people worldwide.

Holy shit, Batman, that was a long sentence. 😆

As long as there are sports, there will be funds given, even if under the table, towards research on muscular/performance enhancement. The Balco scandal is one example of low-brow-secretive funding. There are probably military applications and programs for such research as well. It can almost be sure that those programs are classified and we won't even know about them until a decade after thr programs are implemented and successful. I know they are working on "field skin" that can be used on a whim, but I can't think of anything the government is working on right off the top of my head. I'm sure a google could find something.

Also, biomedical research(or just simply "medical research"😉 is not underfunded. There's big money in it. Biomedical research has billions of dollars poured into it each year. Pharmaceuticals are BIIIIG business in the U.S.

I could be mistaken what you are saying. You may have meant something else.

Also, indirectly, research for muscle/performance enhancement is always being researched. Wasting due to AIDS, muscular dystrophy, etc. that is researched and circumvented, spared, or even enhancing hypertrophy, in any way can also be applied to muscle/performance enhancement in one way or another. The bodybuilding and athletic communities watch the clinical trials for those types of pharmaceuticals. (Damn...that was really really hard to put into words.)

You'd be surprised to see all the ridiculous projects going on to stave off muscle wasting, enhance muscle growth or preserve it, and increase endurance. Endurance seems to be getting quite a bit of attention...to my surprise.

Imagine a super soldier who is "naturally" three times (or more) as strong as any other average soldier, has three times the endurance capacity, fibrous connective tissue that is 10 times as strong as any average person's, bone density 3 times greater than average, and the ability to heal various tissues at 20 times the rate of an average person.(Nano technology) This can all, eventually, be achieved. Most of these items are already being looked in to.

The trillions of dollars pharmaceutical companies spend on undirected screening of compounds for any and every effect, followed by numerous stages of clinical trials where most fail to show efficacy or safety and encompassing the minefield of expensive regulatory redtape...

... is not the same as basic medical research into the underlying causes of disorders and diseases or even translational medical research into potential cures being well-funded or "big money."

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The trillions of dollars pharmaceutical companies spend on undirected screening of compounds for any and every effect, followed by numerous stages of clinical trials where most fail to show efficacy or safety and encompassing the minefield of expensive regulatory redtape...

... is not the same as basic medical research into the underlying causes of disorders and diseases or even translational medical research into potential cures being well-funded or "big money."

That's not really true. Those companies spend a lot of money to make sure their latest product passes tests and make the shelves. And even to market products that aren't subject to test or approval. And what consideration is "approval" when the very organization and commitees are owned and paid-for by the companies marketing the products?

I don't see how your rant about big bad Pharma was relevant to my comment about their being a distinction between a company like Pfizer and a research group funded by grant money... 😬

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't see how your rant about big bad Pharma was relevant to my comment about their being a distinction between a company like Pfizer and a research group funded by grant money... 😬

Isn't it obvious? They're both words!

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't see how your rant about big bad Pharma was relevant to my comment about their being a distinction between a company like Pfizer and a research group funded by grant money... 😬

Becuase Pfizer spends a lot of money to make sure their drugs are the ones being tested by a huge number of these grants. And, sadly, on the government side of things, there's only so much money in the budget for public funding. And that's not to say that the drug companies don't spend their own money. They do. And a lot of the are giving out grants through foundatins. And they're deciding which drugs studies to fund. But a lot of that has to do with the findings of the research. And, those non-corporate studies are also publically funded and if the resulting drugs are found to be helpful, the people who came up with it sell it to drug companies who then shelve the product if it's found to be a threat to their profit margin.

Originally posted by Toku King
Isn't it obvious? They're both words!

You've got it all figured out, I guess.

Originally posted by Devil King
Becuase Pfizer spends a lot of money to make sure their drugs are the ones being tested by a huge number of these grants. And, sadly, on the government side of things, there's only so much money in the budget for public funding. And that's not to say that the drug companies don't spend their own money. They do. And a lot of the are giving out grants through foundatins. And they're deciding which drugs studies to fund. But a lot of that has to do with the findings of the research. And, those non-corporate studies are also publically funded and if the resulting drugs are found to be helpful, the people who came up with it sell it to drug companies who then shelve the product if it's found to be a threat to their profit margin.

Before I elicit yet another rant about big bad Pharma; can I just make sure you understand there's a difference and distinction between a pharmaceutical company and a basic research laboratory? And that academic research laboratories aren't just shills of big bad Pharma?

You're essentially casting aspersions on the entirety of the biomedical research community. I don't know of anyone who got into research for the money, google to see what a Post-Doc's salary is.

Yes, there are places things like the Novartis Research Foundation, but your assumption that simply being part of one casts aside academic integrity and independence is pretty baseless.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't know of any drug companies somehow manipulating competitive grants from public and private foundations to force laboratories in academic institutions to test them, I'm not and there aren't any other PhD students in my department testing the effects of any compounds.

Before I elicit yet another rant about big bad Pharma; can I just make sure you understand there's a difference and distinction between a pharmaceutical company and a basic research laboratory? And that academic research laboratories aren't just shills of big bad Pharma?

You're essentially casting aspersions on the entirety of the biomedical research community. I don't know of anyone who got into research for the money, google to see what a Post-Doc's salary is.

Yes, there are places things like the Novartis Research Foundation, but your assumption that simply being part of one casts aside academic integrity and independence is pretty baseless.

Sure there's a difference.

How many of the drugs tested in your research laboratory or discovered in your research laboratory are currently being sold to patients, lobbied for by phramacutical reps in doctor's offices and/or are approved by the FDA?

Not the entire biomedical research community. I am unconcerned about your salery. You, as the apparent researcher, are not much more considered in regards to the profits or bottom-line than are the consumer/patients. How many medicine patient studies do you work with?

You assume drugs are being tested, when I already said no one in my department is testing any compounds. I'm also not at liberty to divulge others' research anyway. You also again seem to confuse clinical trials with basic research. And you seem to think the only form of biomedical research is that which involves testing pharmaceuticals.

If something was already FDA approved, to what end would testing of it in fundamental research be?

"How many medicine patient studies do you work with?" is not, to me, a coherent question.

All you seem to be doing is venting against the pharmaceutical industry, whilst libeling fundamental researchers.

So I'm going to take it that your ranting has little relevance to "my comment about their being a distinction between a company like Pfizer and a research group funded by grant money" and more to do with a need to rant.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You assume drugs are being tested, when I already said no one in my department is testing any compounds. I'm also not at liberty to divulge others' research anyway. You also again seem to confuse clinical trials with basic research. And you seem to think the only form of biomedical research is that which involves testing pharmaceuticals.

If something was already FDA approved, to what end would testing of it in fundamental research be?

"How many medicine patient studies do you work with?" is not, to me, a coherent question.

All you seem to be doing is venting against the pharmaceutical industry, whilst libeling fundamental researchers.

So I'm going to take it that your ranting has little relevance to "my comment about their being a distinction between a company like Pfizer and a research group funded by grant money" and more to do with a need to rant.

Nope, I've been very clear about what I'm talking about. I just sai that I wasn't talking about all biomedical research.

I didn't ask if you were testing FDA approved medicines. I asked which of your medicines have been approved.

How many studies are you involved in, or have been involved in, where there is research that involves volunteer patients and how they're effected by medicines that you're testing? Trial studies where human beings are given medicine that is being tested?

Yes, I'm venting against the pharmaceutical industry. Congratulations on picking up on the very obvious. You mentioned the industry and I said what I think of it based on reading articles and lawsuits filed. My rant has nothing to do with your distinction between companies like Pfizer and all medical research. It has to do with my comment that drug manufacturers are not interested in anything but profit and have numerous times used their influence to fudge research, push an agenda through their government lobbys, convinced doctors via incintives to use their prescriptions, use government funds to perform testing research when they have more than enough money to pay for their own, that they do in fact pay for their own research too and that they have bought the patent to medicines that they have no intention of prducing for public consumption.

Originally posted by Devil King
Nope, I've been very clear about what I'm talking about. I just sai that I wasn't talking about all biomedical research.

I didn't ask if you were testing FDA approved medicines. I asked which of your medicines have been approved.

How many studies are you involved in, or have been involved in, where there is research that involves volunteer patients and how they're effected by medicines that you're testing? Trial studies where human beings are given medicine that is being tested?

Yes, I'm venting against the pharmaceutical industry. Congratulations on picking up on the very obvious. You mentioned the industry and I said what I think of it based on reading articles and lawsuits filed. My rant has nothing to do with your distinction between companies like Pfizer and all medical research. It has to do with my comment that drug manufacturers are not interested in anything but profit and have numerous times used their influence to fudge research, push an agenda through their government lobbys, convinced doctors via incintives to use their prescriptions, use government funds to perform testing research when they have more than enough money to pay for their own, that they do in fact pay for their own research too and that they have bought the patent to medicines that they have no intention of prducing for public consumption.

1. "Biomedical research" is redundant. "Medical research" will do just fine. It is almost like using the word "irregardless".

2. xmarksthespot made a comment about "biomedical research being underfunded", which is not true. There are organizations/portions of medical research that are underfunded, which is what he was referring to. Edit-To me, it's a classic example of knowing what you wanted to say but just failing to convey it properly...I do it all the time. I figured it was something like that, which is why I said I may be misunderstanding you.

3. Pharmacology is VERY big business and is massively funded. There's, obviously, an uneven distribution of funding. It's called capitalism. We will, obviously, find uneven distribution of funds in all climes of business.

[/rant]

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. "Biomedical research" is redundant. "Medical research" will do just fine. It is almost like using the word "irregardless".

biomedical research, like pharmacological research, is a type of medical research.

afaik, biomedical sounds like biological research for the purpose of medicine, be it chemical or surgical. This is, unless I'm way off base, very distinct methodologically than other forms of medical research and would warrant its own distinction. Much like pharmacological research is different from chemistry.

For instance, there are 3 fields: Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, and Cognitive neuroscience. While they all loosely fall under the term "psychology" (neuroscience less so), not to make distinctions between the field is going to be more confusing than not. Because of how different the methods and philosophies between the 3 subjects are, it is only appropriate to label them as different. To label all of them as Psychology, like labeling biomedical as medical, is not, at the very least, a good idea, but likely even semantically incorrect.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. xmarksthespot made a comment about "biomedical research being underfunded", which is not true. There are organizations/portions of medical research that are underfunded, which is what he was referring to. Edit-To me, it's a classic example of knowing what you wanted to say but just failing to convey it properly...I do it all the time. I figured it was something like that, which is why I said I may be misunderstanding you.

the portion of research that is underfunded is biomedical, as opposed to pharmaceutical.

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. Pharmacology is VERY big business and is massively funded. There's, obviously, an uneven distribution of funding. It's called capitalism. We will, obviously, find uneven distribution of funds in all climes of business.

Areas of pharmacology are well funded. Many areas are not.

I understand your point, but washing over complex nuances between fields of reasearch because, to you, they are all the same is not going to provide a better understanding of what is going on.

Originally posted by inimalist
biomedical research, like pharmacological research, is a type of medical research.

I disagree. I look at biomedical research as the same exact thing as medical research. I was ranting, not AT xmarksthespot, but about "biomedical research" being redundant. It was more of a general complaint about redundancy. I was NOT correcting him.

I could be wrong...and maybe there is a difference between the two...

Like I was saying earlier, it is like the word "irregardless". That is an utterly useless word. "Regardless" works just fine.

Originally posted by inimalist
the portion of research that is underfunded is biomedical, as opposed to pharmaceutical..

We could be aruging apples and oranges at this point. I think am using "biomedical research" in the broad definition(that assumes there is any other definition of "biomedical research"..which I am not sure there is.) The point(#2) that you responded to should define my contextual intention. I worded it that way so that confusion wouldn't arise from multiple definitions running around. Again, as far as I know, "biomedical research"="medical research".

Originally posted by inimalist
I understand your point, but washing over complex nuances between fields of reasearch because, to you, they are all the same is not going to provide a better understanding of what is going on.

Well, considering I placed them "all" in the category of "biomedical research" just as xmarksthespot has(which is why we have continued on this subject), yes, I can call it "all the same". What you said above does not change the correctness of my post in any way. My point also does not contradict what you said here:

Originally posted by inimalist
Areas of pharmacology are well funded. Many areas are not.

That is another way of saying what I said except that it was specific to pharmacology.

then both you AND x are making wild generalizations by including all possible forms of "medical" research as a single field and oversimplifying funding issues.

I don't know if I would consider chemical engineering as "biomedical research". Certainly medical research, but the focus on chemistry as opposed to biology (though both are relevant under the distinction "medical"😉, to me at least, makes them seperate fields. The fact that there are massive differences in how/why either field is funded (re: there is no catch all way to describe all funding of "medical research" as a whole), I think, further necessitates the distinction.

I'll admit this is being a little academic, but there is NO redundency is specifying between bio-medical and pharmalogical, or between either of those and medical research in general, much like how one must distinguish between social psychology and psychology.

Also, isn't bio-medical animal stuff more often than not?

Originally posted by inimalist
then both you AND x are making wild generalizations by including all possible forms of "medical" research as a single field and oversimplifying funding issues.

No, it is the root field upon which all other medically related fields branch. I hate to use this as an example...it is kind of like branching out all the different types and flavors of theology. (Minus the idiotic blind faith, illogical conclusions, etc.)

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know if I would consider chemical engineering as "biomedical research". Certainly medical research, but the focus on chemistry as opposed to biology (though both are relevant under the distinction "medical"😉, to me at least, makes them seperate fields. The fact that there are massive differences in how/why either field is funded (re: there is no catch all way to describe all funding of "medical research" as a whole), I think, further necessitates the distinction.

See, this is the problem. I don't think we are on the same page. We're arguing apples and oranges.

I'll google "biomedical research" and see where the problem is.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'll admit this is being a little academic, but there is NO redundency is specifying between bio-medical and pharmalogical, or between either of those and medical research in general, much like how one must distinguish between social psychology and psychology.

But this is not what I was ranting about. I was ranting about biomedical research being the same thing as medical research. Of course, pharmacology would be a more specific form of medical research...there's nothing wrong with being specific. In fact, it is almost necessary to refer to which area of study you are referring to.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, isn't bio-medical animal stuff more often than not?

You may be thinking of just the term "biomedical" used alone.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You may be thinking of just the term "biomedical" used alone.

maybe

i'd object to the specification of medical research as "bio", though totally unrelated and massively OT