(Page 2 of 2)
While it's not yet clear if similar rates will be seen in humans, high doses of anabolic steroids, which carry serious side effects, increase muscle mass by a maximum of 15 to 20 percent. And because myostatin is found only in muscle, knocking it out does not appear to have the adverse effects of broader-acting steroids.
Acceleron plans to begin trials of its drug for muscular dystrophy, a genetic disorder of progressive muscle loss that usually kills sufferers before they reach age 30, in early 2008. Trials for cancer and ALS will follow.
Acceleron's Big Pharma competitors are farther along. In 2005, Wyeth, headquartered in Madison, NJ, began a clinical trial of an antibody to myostatin that binds to it and blocks its activity, as a treatment for two forms of muscular dystrophy. Results were expected to be released late last year, but the company declined to comment on the current status. Amgen, headquartered in Thousand Oaks, CA, is analyzing results from a recently completed safety trial of its own myostatin inhibitor. The company is also testing a second inhibitor as a countermeasure to space-flight-induced muscle changes. Mice aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavor in August were given Amgen's experimental drug to determine if it could slow muscle loss in microgravity.
While initial clinical trials are focused on relatively rare conditions such as muscular dystrophy, safe muscle-building drugs have a broad potential market. "There is no effective agent to prevent the accelerated loss of muscle associated with disease, infection, or illness, such as cancer, heart failure, and kidney disease and dialysis," says William Evans, director of the Nutrition, Metabolism, and Exercise Laboratory at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Muscle loss is linked to increased mortality in these patients, as well as to an individual's level of disability resulting from normal aging. "As treatments of disease like cancer and heart failure become more effective, the issue becomes more prominent," says Evans. For example, treating cancer patients with a muscle-building drug may allow oncologists to administer extra rounds of chemotherapy.
In addition to treating muscle wasting, such drugs might prove effective in treating metabolic disorders, such as insulin resistance, which is linked to obesity and diabetes. Previous research has shown that diet-induced obese mice given Acceleron's drug showed an increase in lean muscle mass and reduced fasting glucose and insulin levels. Says Evans, "I think these drugs, perhaps used in combo with exercise, might have great potential in reversing the trend toward increasing obesity and decreasing muscle mass."
A handheld device could give doctors more precise data about muscle health--painlessly.
Researchers boost growth of muscle stem cells to stop age-related muscle deterioration.
We won't have to worry about testing volunteers for this drug when it comes available.
Why does enhancement have to be considered inherently abusive?
Fine if you want to argue against it. I'm not even arguing for it. But it bothers me that biological enhancement of normal human capability is considered out of the question by most people.
Re: Why does enhancement have to be considered inherently abusive?
The problems with steroids are two-fold. One is the well-known side effects - I had to take a course of a steroid based medicine, and it gave me the sweet and retiring personality of a rabid werewolf for the duration. Also, the physiologically damaging physical side effects of continued use are a real risk to the user.
But the big problem with steroid use in sports is that it "un-levels the playing field", giving the advantage to deep pockets rather than skill.
The rest of your body will have to keep up.
Imagine the kind of effort it would take to mantain this sort of muscle growth in a normal human. First, you would have to eat several high calorie meals a day or you would be miserable from hunger pains. You won't be able to put your left or right hand on the same shoulder because your biceps are too big. Plus, I've seen some bad bone breaks by weight lifters whose bones couldn't support the loads that their muscles were perfectly willing to accept. That's only in normal humans and those who use "traditional" steroids.
A person using this sort of treatment would also have to find a way to roughly double his/her bone density so that they're not breaking their fingers doing stuff that's normally not possible. Then you have to consider the strain on your respiratory system. You have to have enough blood running fast enough through your veins so that those muscles don't run dry doing every day tasks and better kidneys to filter it. You also have to have a set of heavy-duty lungs to oxygenate all of that extra blood and a heart that will pump it fast enough. It's like the world of high-perfrmance auto racing where the key elements are fuel, air, engine, chassis, and drive train. This new class of drugs provides the human analogue of a super-fancy drive train. However, with out the fuel/air/engine (food/lungs/blood, heart, etc.) to power it, it'll never get past second gear without stalling and the chassis (skeleton) will never survive the extra torque.
It kinda scares me when I think about the sort of research-driven market that could spring up when people can experience muscle gains this big, and I mean not only in athletics but mainstream as well. I think the only reason it hasn't is because traditonal steroids don't see such dramatic effects ( am I right?) and their side effects are so terrible. We'll just have to see what the side-effects of these new myostatin drugs are. I think they will all be related to the extra weight-gain of a 60+ % boost in muscle mass.
I do think that this could be a huge boon for people with the muscle waisting diseases though, as long the absence of myostatin isn't screwing with the production of other proteins and hormones. It's always happened in the past that ,when a drug goes bad there has been an unforseen chain-reaction and the mistakes occur somewhere way-down that chain. We'll just have to study every effect to Nth degree with this stuff.
A word in the defence of research
It was known in 1997 that the same genetic "secret formula" that gave unusually large muscles to the "mighty mice" engineered by The Johns Hopkins University, was also at work naturally in specially bred cattle that have extra muscle. Muscular cattle breeds like the Belgian Blue and the Piedmontese have a genetic mutation that blocks myostatin as do some sheep which are likewise bred for their meat.
Zippo is quite right that a 60% increase in muscle mass on the body an skeleton of an otherwise "normal" 90 pound weakling could place an overwhelming burden on the skeleton and heart and maybe other unforeseen side effects. But what if we could stop the muscle growth at 20% or any other artificial figure? What if we could also make the skeleton and heart mightier along with muscles? This calls for more research not less to understand the exact processes of the body.
As for the argument that it would be "cheating" I don't buy that. Do you cheat when you train or have a better diet than a subsistence survivor from sub Saharan Africa? Does a 90 pond weakling cheat if he tries to better the hand that nature has dealt him compared to that of an Olympic athlete? To my mind the answer is no.
Re: A word in the defence of research
Addendum - to my mind a 90 pond weakling would not be cheating in trying to better the hand dealt to him, neither would an Olympic athlete, or someone suffering from muscular dystrophy, or from muscle loss due to age, or anyone at any stage in life. No one, in other words. Evolution works to make us stronger, faster, more intelligent. We have the means to give evolution a helping hand - speed it up. We should use it.
Re: A word in the defence of research
OK, show of (muscled) hands:
Who actually wants to see an anything goes enhanced Olympics? See, if we let adult age athletes do what they want to do to win, they'll test stuff that you'll use if you ever need it to stave off a wasting disease.
Re: A word in the defence of research
The attempted sarcasm was unneeded and a bit flat alas. As a matter of fact many Olympic athletes, and other athletes, world class or otherwise, have always used the latest knowledge and research to try and enhance themselves. They have been the human guinea pigs of research otherwise sanctioned for (other) animals.
What is needed is more research to see what is safe and what is not. In the above article it has been mentioned that "because myostatin is found only in muscle, knocking it out does not appear to have the adverse effects of broader-acting steroids." It also appears to "increase lean muscle mass and reduce fasting glucose and insulin levels", all good things. It remains to be seen what the adverse effects are.
We need to figure out the genetic code to better ourselves. Rid ourselves of disease and death, enhance our bodies and make ourselves more intelligent. This is just one paragraph of a chapter in the book.
Re: The rest of your body will have to keep up.
Accelleron's initial trials of ace-031 in healthy post-menopausal women indicated an increase in bone density as well as other benefits. It appears the rest of your body will keep up.
Nothing suggest harmful effects
The mice don't die sooner becaused of the added musculature. The pictures of animals I've seen with it don't look fat. Your heart, lungs, and blood supply grow according to your bodies needs.
Why is it always considered "abuse" when someone wants to improve themselves. Humans have always tried every means possible to improve themselves. New research like this will help cure disease as well as help people live longer and healthier.
As far as sports go, I am all for safe supplementation. I am tired of watching caveman vs. caveman. I would rather watch superman vs. superman.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
nekote
139 Comments
A new "steroid" for athletes?
Great for people suffering with muscle wasting diseases!
But, a new type of 'roid for athletes?
And, couch potatoes - skip the gym?
Reply
Emily Singer
26 Comments
Re: A new "steroid" for athletes?
"We plan to run an article about the potential for abuse for these and other drugs next week."
Reply
lowilliams
17 Comments
Re: A new "steroid" for athletes?
I am 74 and had a very bad reaction to one of the satins in 2005 The reaqction nearly destroyed the muscles in my legs. I am better but still cannot make it up a flight of more than 3 steps, and no steps if I am carrying something. I spend 40 minutes twice a week on a treadmill to help my leg muscles.
This new group of drugs would be great for me.
Reply
notworthmytime
1 Comment
Re: A new "steroid" for athletes?
Couch potatoes do skip the health club, at least with the Myostatin drugs they would not have so much fat tissue.
Reply