backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by kufeifie.. on Dec 15 at 10:14 PM


A Belgian Blue cow shows off the super-musculature that myostatin blocking can produce.  (Source: kottke.org)

Wendy is a whippet endowed with myostatin blocking. Where whippets are typically slender, Wendy is bluky and tough. She has been studied by genetics researchers in the U.S.  (Source: Canada.com)

Humans with myostatin blocking have shown development of similar freakish strength. One such baby was recently born in Berlin, Germany (pictured), while another was born in Roosevelt Park, Mich.  (Source: China Daily)
Scientists have demonstrated a way to selectively block myostatin production

Myostatin is a critical gene in the human body that plays a regulatory role in many processes, including the deposition of fatty tissue.  It also blocks muscle growth.  Animals or humans born without the gene show freakish muscular growth and the ability to perform athletic feats that take their peers years of dedication and training.

Of course all that comes at a price.  Muscle building mandates a diet with more protein, which can put a stress on organs like the kidneys (as well as placing additional physical stress on them).  Those with an unusually high amount of muscle have been shown to live to shorter lifespans in some studies, potentially due to increased rates of organ failure.

Undeterred, researchers are pushing ahead to look at ways to block myostatin and make us into supermen (and women).  Researchers at the National Children’s Hospital (NCH) and Ohio State University have demonstrated how gene therapy can be used to selectively upregulate follistatin in muscles according to Singularity Hub.  Fullistatin blocks myostatin, allowing for tremendous gains.  The macaque monkeys involved in the trial were endowed with super biceps.

The center is now filing the preliminary paperwork to start human trials.  They insist that their goal is not to make super people, but rather to help children and the elderly with conditions that cause muscular dystrophy.  Using the blockers, children with Muscular Dystrophy (MD), a disease that frequently leads to an early death, could develop musculature on par, or even superior to their peers, raising their chance of survival. 

In the elderly, the therapy could be used to combat conditions that cause loss of musculature or muscle control.   This could lead to less accidents and improved energy.

As mentioned, dangers of Myostatin blocking include an increased rate of organ failure, possible effects on smooth muscle tissue, and damage to tendons and ligaments.  The briefer and more selective application of the new gene therapy may somewhat reduce the risk of the first two problems, but the long term effects on connective tissue health remain to be seen.

As for the monkeys, after receiving the treatment they continued to add muscle for close to 12 months.  Their biceps increased 15 percent in circumference.  And one of the test subjects demonstrated an incredible 78 percent increase in leg muscle strength when undergoing electrical stimulation.  Best of all, the monkeys showed no adverse affects -- their organs seemed in perfect health.

So how far could myostatin blocking take us?  Well, to answer that, just look at the story of Liam Hoekstra, a toddler from Roosevelt, Michigan, who was born without the myostatin gene.  Despite having to overcome some tough birth defects, the youngster could stand up fully after only two days.  Within months the toddler was doing pull-ups, inverted sit-ups, Olympics-ready iron crosses, and even punching holes in his parents walls when he threw fits. 

If myostatin therapies hit the mainstream to treat age associated or genetic muscular atrophy, it's hard to believe that some won't use them for such athletic gains.  However, we are approaching a point where some of the dangers may be minimized.  The fields of organ engineering and implantation are advancing rapidly.  Today, organs like the bladder have been successfully grown and implanted into humans.  So if our super muscles wear out our body, we may be able to pop in some replacements, much like making a pit stop on the race track.

The real question is -- how will these advancements effect society?  From those with super-vision via artificial lenses, to myostatin hulking behemoths, where will we draw the line in terms of athletic competition and morality.  That's an intriguing question that will yet be debated by society.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

**Shudders**
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/9/2009 9:39:58 AM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, but those first two pictures are freaking me the heck out.




RE: **Shudders**
By Wodinn on 12/9/2009 9:48:19 AM , Rating: 5
I read previously that the whippet is a real sweetheart.


RE: **Shudders**
By Anoxanmore on 12/9/2009 9:59:44 AM , Rating: 4
The cow scares me the most.


RE: **Shudders**
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: **Shudders**
By Redwin on 12/9/2009 12:25:58 PM , Rating: 5
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cow

2: a domestic bovine animal regardless of sex or age

His use of the word was perfectly acceptable, stop trying to be the word police, nobody wants to hear it.


RE: **Shudders**
By psychobriggsy on 12/10/2009 10:42:35 AM , Rating: 1
Oxford English Dictionary:

cow
• noun 1 a fully grown female animal of a domesticated breed of ox. 2 the female of certain other large animals, such as the elephant or whale. 3 informal, derogatory a woman. 4 Austral./NZ an unpleasant person or thing.


RE: **Shudders**
By psychobriggsy on 12/10/2009 10:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
Actually technically the bull pictured comes under (4) above.


RE: **Shudders**
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/11/2009 7:16:40 AM , Rating: 1
I think that was a joke I was making there. Ha ha, humorous, and such. Cause its a bull, get it? No, okay, fall back into your defensive attitude. Maybe someone else is being the word police and you can slam them.


RE: **Shudders**
By ClownPuncher on 12/9/2009 12:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
I puked a little in my mouth.


RE: **Shudders**
By lightfoot on 12/9/2009 3:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know... Ground up and with a little ketchup and cheese and it would probably be quite tasty. And just imagine the size of the New York Strip Steak!

Is anyone else hungry??


RE: **Shudders**
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2009 3:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
You assume super cow can be killed. I see bullets bouncing off that thing and blades dulling. And don't even imagine the horror if it attacks you.

And I hope they killed those monkeys.


RE: **Shudders**
By Anoxanmore on 12/9/2009 3:58:39 PM , Rating: 3
The monkies are real and they are comming to get you.

: - P


RE: **Shudders**
By ClownPuncher on 12/9/2009 4:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
The cow looks like those crazy bull things that charge you in the Serious Sam game. Put this cow in your front yard for some theft deterrance and you would never be robbed.


RE: **Shudders**
By jconan on 12/9/2009 9:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
they could probably turn into a creature from doom3 an militant attack bovine, no bull here, just cows


RE: **Shudders**
By MrPoletski on 12/10/2009 8:51:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure I've seen that cow before... Kung-pow?


RE: **Shudders**
By Black69ta on 12/12/2009 1:36:00 AM , Rating: 2
Like Jerky Cause it would be Tough. At least I would think that with the reduction in body fat the meat would be less marbled.


RE: **Shudders**
By MrPoletski on 12/10/2009 8:50:01 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah but it's given Ronald Macdonald a serious hard-on.


RE: **Shudders**
By kufeifie on 12/15/2009 10:14:33 PM , Rating: 1
Christmas gifts come in to pick:
=====h t t p : / / w w w . b h s h o e . c o m====
jewerly $20
ugg boots$50
jordan shoes$32
handbag$35
h t t p : / / w w w . b h s h o e . c o m


RE: **Shudders**
By Dreamwalker on 12/9/2009 10:09:25 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I was sure that those 2 pictures were made in Photoshop or something like that...

Are you sure these are real? Thats just sick.


RE: **Shudders**
By Iaiken on 12/9/2009 12:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
They are very real.

There was an episode of NOVA recently that showcased the Kid from Michigan and also the cows and that crazy looking whippet.

The kid could do an iron cross at 3 years old.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7...


RE: **Shudders**
By therealnickdanger on 12/9/2009 3:23:25 PM , Rating: 3
I'd advise everyone to watch the documentary about steroids: "Bigger, Stronger, Faster". It's available for streaming on Netflix. Not only is it funny and WELL put-together, but also has a lot of great information, including a portion on Belgian Blues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigger,_Stronger,_Fas...


RE: **Shudders**
By Lord 666 on 12/9/2009 3:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Great movie


RE: **Shudders**
By Flunk on 12/9/2009 12:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
Belgian Blue Bulls all look like that it's actually how they thought of this sort of therapy. It's natural, well as natural as selective breeding that is.


RE: **Shudders**
By kkshoe1210 on 12/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: **Shudders**
By kkuulr on 12/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: **Shudders**
By aqaq55 on 12/15/2009 7:41:02 AM , Rating: 1
http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow


RE: **Shudders**
By kufeifie on 12/15/09, Rating: 0
Implications for sports
By ouldoop on 12/9/2009 9:58:34 AM , Rating: 2
Since this is occurs naturally I have some doubts about people trying to block athletes from getting this done artificially. Everyone will be on equal footing if they take this though.




RE: Implications for sports
By ImSpartacus on 12/9/2009 10:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
That's like saying everyone can take steroids, therefore they are fair.

Not to discount your argument, but I believe that people who have this genetic mutation naturally would be more likely to be banned.

Neither outcome is ideal in my opinion. We'll just to wait and see how this plays out.


RE: Implications for sports
By SublimeSimplicity on 12/9/2009 10:21:47 AM , Rating: 5
They ban (or attempt to ban) the use of HGH (human growth hormone). I don't see how this is any different.

On the other side, banning athletes born with this condition is a slippery slope. Do you ban Lance Armstrong for having abnormally large lung capacity? Michael Phelps because his feet and arm's are out of proportion to his body? Andy Roddick for his abnormally flexible shoulder?

If you ban this, because it has been scientifically reduced down to a gene. What's to stop banning anyone for what we used to call a God given gift, by simply figuring out which gene gave endowed them with it?


RE: Implications for sports
By ImSpartacus on 12/9/2009 10:39:26 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yes. I understand.

When it comes down to it, genetic abnormalities are what make Olympians Olympians. Practice only goes so far.

This is going to be an interesting subject to watch in the coming months.


RE: Implications for sports
By Sooticus on 12/9/2009 6:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
I find it interesting that we are labeling athletic features as "abnormalities", not to poke fun at anyone in partiticular.

Since everyone has there own unique genetic make up (my appologies to any clones out there), random mutations are a part of life.

What I find interesting is the degree of physical difference this genetic trait conveys.

On a side note, this would be great for space travel since astronauts suffer a great deal of muscle loss when in zero G for prolonged periods.


RE: Implications for sports
By mindless1 on 12/9/2009 10:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm. Oversized and weight, requiring very high protein diet, organ failure including kidneys esp.

I have to suspect you are totally wrong, this is the worst possible attribute for space travel. They suffer muscle loss because they don't NEED as much muscle in space, it is the correct and useful adaptation. Once back on earth they similarly undergo again a correct adaptation, building the required musculature for that environment.

Far more than anything else someone suited for space travel would be the MOST, not less, adaptable per the environment.


RE: Implications for sports
By mindless1 on 12/9/2009 10:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
No slippery slope, ban the mutants from competing. There is a difference between having a bit larger lungs and a genetic defect, as always sane people can make distinctions instead of thinking it has to be all or nothing.


RE: Implications for sports
By TSS on 12/10/2009 6:33:22 AM , Rating: 3
A genetic defect is a genetic defect, wether we enable or disable that effect ourselves. Larger lungs are also genetic defects. Calling them mutations would be closer, but something must have failed first for something else to adapt.

Besides they make sport interesting. In this day and age we've pretty much perfected each sport to the limits of the human body. We've resorted to technology to give us even more of a boost. And then phelps comes along and just sets a new standard.

I see no reason why we should ban the "mutants", be it by birth or by genetic engineering. Because it wouldn't be long before "talent" is included with the mutants, as well as "creativity". Now that, my friend, is a slippery slope.

But i would be for splitting say the olympics into Classic, Modern and Unlimited tiers. Classic, in the nude, no steroids or anything. Modern, current rules: No body modifications, but technology is allowed. Unlimited: give the mutants whatever they want to try and reach for the limit of our species.

Then it's honor and glory for all. And sports will get intersting again without all this debate nowerdays about steroids and what tech should be used or not.


RE: Implications for sports
By mindless1 on 12/12/2009 2:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
I think the slippery slope is more slippery than mentioned. Can we ban a being that mutated over time into a cheetah instead of a human when it's a foot race?

Larger lungs are not necessarily a defect, there is and always has been natural variation in such things that didn't substantially change the underlying makeup and process of the body like this does.

I just don't buy the slippery slope argument. It's like saying it is a slippery slope to give someone a speeding ticket for going faster than the regulated limits we define, because in the end we can spell out what is and isn't allowed just as we've already done with other sporting regulations.


RE: Implications for sports
By 91TTZ on 12/15/2009 5:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
Should we ban people with pituitary problems from the NBA? Most "tall" people are 6'5 or shorter. When someone is 7'something it's usually due to a problem with their growth hormones.


RE: Implications for sports
By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2009 10:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
It's not natural. At all. Aside from a few rare cases where the mutation happens on it's own.

This is another "Jurrasic Park" example, that just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we always SHOULD. We have no idea what the long term effects of this would be on health.

As far as sports is concerned, this is no different than steroids. Whether you are injecting a drug, or going through gene therapy, the results are the same. You are using medicine to gain a completely unfair competitive advantage over those who don't.


RE: Implications for sports
By LordanSS on 12/9/2009 2:58:37 PM , Rating: 3
I support this research, as there are many people in this world who would be able to benefit from possible treatments derived from it.

Kids with Muscular Dystrophy, for example. If they could gain a few years, if not a decade, out of the boost in their muscular tissue (including the muscles that allow them to BREATHE), that would be reason enough right there.

Unfortunately, this research would be of no use to patients diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which is a neurological disease. How awesome would it be though, if we could save someone like Stephen Hawking? =/


RE: Implications for sports
By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Implications for sports
By mindless1 on 12/9/2009 10:24:30 PM , Rating: 1
Oh how easily you silly people always think in extremes.

Adding a bit of muscle is not an obligation to go overboard with it.

MODERATION


RE: Implications for sports
By CBone on 12/15/2009 3:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How awesome would it be though, if we could save someone like Stephen Hawking? =/


He would probably be a douchebag guido without the paralysis.


RE: Implications for sports
By Dreamwalker on 12/9/2009 10:18:54 AM , Rating: 2
I actually doubt about having major benefits in athletesism. Why? You relly think your loungs would be able to filter/pump such amount of air/oxygene needed to power such mass of muscle?

Short term power->YES , 2 rounds in a boxing ring-> EPIC FAIL :D


RE: Implications for sports
By rudy on 12/9/2009 12:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that you aren't going to run this as a complete knock out. If you work out the system well you can regulate the expression of these genes to a level that allows you to always have heavy muscle build but not so much that it is detrimental. Just imagine a heavy weight lifter but not a freak of nature. And the person does much less work to achieve that.


RE: Implications for sports
By DotNetGuru on 12/9/2009 3:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
If I looked like that, I wouldn't worry about round 2


RE: Implications for sports
By mindless1 on 12/9/2009 10:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to lack understanding. Think of it in terms of a performance computer.

If you remove the bottleneck of muscles, the next higher bottleneck might be lungs. It's still a higher performance than the prior bottleneck was, just as with anything else your muscles grow to a level supported by the other organs' ability to support that.

You do bring up a good point though, that the body is a balance, and yet with more muscles it's conceivable there is more blood, ability to breath faster. Look at it the opposite way, do you think someone with the least muscle is more capable of going the most rounds possible in a boxing ring? Not necessarily, the lung capacity simply has to meet the oxygen requirement.

To put it another way, who breathes harder when trying to carry 100 pounds for miles, a whimpy guy who sits at his desk all day long or a marine?


RE: Implications for sports
By Omega215D on 12/10/2009 2:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
Remember, there's a trade-off with each enhancement. The more muscles the less stamina and the requirement of more fuel than the average person. There's also the chance of less flexibility and speed to help make use of those muscles 100%. This is why martial artists try to go for a balance of strength and agility and instead use the opponent's energy and power against him/ her.


RE: Implications for sports
By mindless1 on 12/12/2009 2:50:30 AM , Rating: 2
In theory they do, but take away the rules of engagement and pit someone with superhuman strength against an agile martial artist. Heck, pit that supercow against one. You have to remember that apples:apples comparisons would mean the superhuman also had appropriate combat training suitable for their physique.

Any random 6 year old is more agile than the typical full grown middle aged male but would the 6 year old win a fight? Not usually.


RE: Implications for sports
By Omega215D on 12/15/2009 8:05:09 AM , Rating: 2
no, proper body mechanics has been proven to show that a smaller person can generate a large amount of force to be effective against larger opponents. I was reading up on why such martial arts worked in the past where people were pretty much larger than those that are around today. The book is called martial mechanics.


RE: Implications for sports
By CBone on 12/15/2009 3:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
no, proper body mechanics has been proven to show that a smaller person can generate a large amount of force to be effective against larger opponents.


I still wouldn't bet on the 6 year old. ;)


mmmm
By invidious on 12/9/2009 10:53:31 AM , Rating: 5
That is one delicious looking cow. And eating might give me a small dose of bigger muscles? Even better.




RE: mmmm
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/9/2009 11:28:52 AM , Rating: 5
I would like to see you try to "milk" that cow, city boy.


RE: mmmm
By Redwin on 12/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: mmmm
By adiposity on 12/9/2009 1:00:08 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe he was trying to be funny.


RE: mmmm
By amanojaku on 12/9/2009 1:16:26 PM , Rating: 1
Are you serious? The picture's caption says "cow". Why aren't you blasting Mick with your vitriol? dotgov's comments were meant to be funny by pointing out the discrepancy. I think a guy who comes up with Princess Bride quotes would get that.


RE: mmmm
By Redwin on 12/9/2009 6:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
well, one of us is reading is reading the posts wrong i think :)

dotgov was posting correcting people who called it a cow, implying they should use the word bull because the animal is male.

I posted a link to the definition, which says its fine to use the word "cow" even when speaking of a male animal.

The fact that the picture says cow just further backs up my point. Its a picture of a male animal, captioned "cow". So there's no need for dotgov to tease people for using the word cow, as he did when he said "like to see you milk that "cow" city boy"

in the end, I probably shouldn't be posting stuff correcting people for the sin of correcting other people incorrectly. It doesn't make me much better than him, so sorry for annoying you aman =P


RE: mmmm
By ipay on 12/9/2009 2:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Red rocket! Red rocket!


RE: mmmm
By bigdawg1988 on 12/9/2009 3:39:49 PM , Rating: 3
Yuck! It's the fat (marbling) that gives beef that delicious taste. Eating this meat would be like eating a piece of hide. Has anyone eaten any Belgian Blue meat?

Oh, by the way, the mutant dogs aren't any faster than normal whippets, they just look scarier.


RE: mmmm
By lightfoot on 12/9/2009 3:55:22 PM , Rating: 3
The difference being I probably wouldn't need to outrun a normal whippet.


RE: mmmm
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2009 4:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
I want that thing as a guard dog


RE: mmmm
By Lord 666 on 12/9/2009 7:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
My genetically modified German Shepard would eat your mutant whippet for lunch.

Why did they do it to a little dog? Try it on a Siberian, Doberman, or Shepard. Now that would be interesting.


RE: mmmm
By mindless1 on 12/9/2009 10:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
They didn't "do" anything to it, except study it because it was "naturally" that way.


RE: mmmm
By amagriva on 12/15/2009 5:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose you'll feed it with texan beef tossed from your all american Vette whistling Dixie and cursing socialist Bama...p.s. I forgot shooting kittens with a Colt Peacemaker...


RE: mmmm
By MrPoletski on 12/10/2009 8:55:23 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah but you might get Bad(ass) Cow Disease...


Protein and kidney myth
By japlha on 12/9/2009 2:41:03 PM , Rating: 1
Excess protein will only be harmful on people with an existing renal condition. Studies have shown this.

It is then falsely concluded that excess protein causes kidney damage to everyone. No study has shown that excess protein causes damage to a healthy kidney.




RE: Protein and kidney myth
By mindless1 on 12/9/2009 10:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
False. Excess protein puts more stress on kidneys. It doesn't take a pre-existing condition, that alone will CAUSE degradation in kidney health and this much is very clear/proven.

Practically EVERY competent study shows excessive protein has a negative effect, where the heck does your fantasy nonsense seem to intersect with science?

Remember we are talking about excessive, not just "more than RDA" levels.


RE: Protein and kidney myth
By jconan on 12/9/2009 11:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
that's true, maybe they should do some studies to create a better kidney, 2 kidneys are not enough maybe 6 then or an optimal quantity for blocked myostatin conditions...


RE: Protein and kidney myth
By SlimCharles on 12/10/2009 1:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong idiot. There have been many studies that say high protein is perfectly fine. Why don't you look at the Inuit who eat only protein and fat, and they live into the 100's. GTFO of here with your bs "OH NOES HIGH PROTEIN = KIDNEY FAILURES" Practically every study? Go to pumbed and show me these studies. Oh that's right they don't exist. I hate ignorant morons like you.


RE: Protein and kidney myth
By intelpatriot on 12/11/2009 8:41:57 AM , Rating: 2
You're the "idiot".

No, a higher protein diet will not cause kidney failure.

There is nothing unhealthy about being athletic or eating a diet similar to the Inuit. Because that was the natural condition for humanity before the agrarian revolution, we were all hunter gatherers (like the Inuit... as you point out). We were all "athletes" 10,000 years ago.

But bodybuilders are not athletes.

A body builder's physique is not "athletic" it is freakish and, yes, the diet necessary to maintain it is unhealthy and is strongly correlated with renal failure.


RE: Protein and kidney myth
By mindless1 on 12/12/2009 2:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
1) I trust you know how to use Google, so search for Inuit lifespan 10 years lower.

2) They don't "only" eat protein and fat.

3) There are random examples in any society of people living into their 100s, that is NOT average or typical.

4) I never wrote "high protein", I wrote "excessive".

5) As with #1, try a search engine for protein kidney damage. You will find evidence that a high protein diet doesn't cause problems but an excessive one does.

Allow me to give you a hint since you just don't get it. Bodybuilders and mutants as seen in this article will need to eat a LOT MORE protein than the Inuit do in order to build and support such increase in muscle mass.

Didn't think of that, did you?


RE: Protein and kidney myth
By cycomiko12 on 12/15/2009 9:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
Seeing as you are making rather substantial claims, could you provide some of this evidence of 'excessive' protein causing kidney damage.

As for the last 15years I have performed reviews on the topic, yet I cannot find this information you seem to have found.


Eugenics?
By lightfoot on 12/9/2009 6:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Is this proof of secret eugenics programs from the 1940's?

Does anyone else find it odd that the two children with this disorder come from the US and Germany?

Hmm...




RE: Eugenics?
By MrPoletski on 12/10/2009 8:56:18 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, isn't it interesting.

Who the hell are you Glenn Beck?


RE: Eugenics?
By lightfoot on 12/10/2009 12:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
Khan Noonian Singh actually...

We need a cute poster child to make people less fearful of our kind. That movie back in the early 80's really ruined my reputation. It's so hard to take over the world when people keep stopping you on the street asking you if you're Ricardo Montalban.


RE: Eugenics?
By MarkHark on 12/11/2009 5:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
Are you thinking Captain America and Red Skull?


Whoa
By Breathless on 12/9/2009 10:03:20 AM , Rating: 3
I had no idea dogs could have a six pack




RE: Whoa
By lightfoot on 12/9/2009 4:00:02 PM , Rating: 4
They can, but they make sloppy drunks.


Sound like a MuscleTech Add Campaign
By Crazyeyeskillah on 12/9/2009 11:00:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And one of the test subjects demonstrated an incredible 78 percent increase in leg muscle strength when undergoing electrical stimulation.


I work at a Vitamin Store and it always kills me when people tell me they have gained 20lbs. of muscle in a month after buying a 2 lbs. jug of protein. Anyone who has ever spent any form of time in a gym knows exactly what i'm talking about. Gotta love the power of adds on the younger generations.




By Lord 666 on 12/9/2009 11:24:09 AM , Rating: 2
Question - Haven't picked up a muscle mag in a while, what is the latest trend in supplement science? I'm from the generation of insane creatine consumption (60g a day even after loading), ephedra, and andro.

Side note on the creatine consumption; been having odd hypertension/water retension issues along with pitting edema. Heart function checks out ok, but appears to be slightly enlarged and bp is only slightly elevated. Body weight is 15 pounds over desired with near zero salt intake. Even checked out for diabetes and a family condition of pheochromocytoma, but without any conclusive results. Have reduced Advil consumption with no change. The only thing that I can think of that is off balance is due to the creatine.


By mindless1 on 12/9/2009 10:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe not as much as 20lbs., BUT their buying the suppliments tends to go along with otherwise stepping up their exercise routine so it is not inconceivable that not just the 2lb protein powder but also the regular food they eat, contribute to significant gains.

It could also be that their muscles just lacked definition so when they start to see more ripples, they think it is fat lost and muscle gained when it is instead just toning of what they already had.


Too bad...
By eickst on 12/9/2009 10:20:02 AM , Rating: 1
The gene doesn't do the same for ligament and bone strength.

That's great that you'll be super strong and all but when some olympic sprinter tries to launch himself out of the blocks and tears every ligament in his knee he will wish he had skipped this gene treatment.




RE: Too bad...
By invidious on 12/9/2009 11:01:23 AM , Rating: 2
In small doses (or perhaps a one time dose) combined with regular excercise the risk to ligament damage is would be very low. The risk is when muscles are overly strong for the ligaments to handle and has nothing to do with how the gene workd, only the end result. Handled with moderation there is no reason this is necisarily unsafe for your ligaments. Obviously many will use it unsafely.

As a 25 year old who goes to the gym after work, getting several times the results out of my workouts sounds nice. I wouldn't want to keep that pace though, I would be happy with 10-20 lbs more muscle. I don't want to look like the hulk.


RE: Too bad...
By mindless1 on 12/9/2009 10:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
If you had this mutation, or it was a treatment, there would be no need to work out to have 20lbs more muscle.

I do agree though that strengthening through exercise would make for stronger bones too.


My third leg
By Lord 666 on 12/9/2009 10:03:40 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, this treatment appears that it not only add length but width as well. Being able to do dumbell curls with your third leg will be a sweet party trick




RE: My third leg
By Anoxanmore on 12/9/2009 10:29:56 AM , Rating: 2
So... 5 x 15% = 5.75, and 4 x 15% = 4.60.

I don't think a curl is quite possible... unless it was already possible.


In the wrong Hands...
By greylica on 12/9/2009 11:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
I can imagine the wrong use of this technology, teens having problems with their bones, with lower height than the normal ones. Using this tech without need would certainly curtain their bone heights, because of the Muscle tension...

A trainer talking:
Do you (really ?) want to get ripped fast ?
Steroids are Past...




RE: In the wrong Hands...
By mindless1 on 12/9/2009 10:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
False. If nothing else look at the pics. Not midgets!


Super soldiers
By Bateluer on 12/9/2009 9:43:07 AM , Rating: 2
Super soldiers




Awesome'o
By SiliconJon on 12/9/2009 11:17:15 AM , Rating: 2
I mean, sign me the heck up. Do it for Science, man. Do it for science!




You Can Get More Meat Out of the Cow
By jdietz on 12/9/2009 3:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
I see no point for doing it do the dog (is that a natural mutation or is it genetically engineered?).

Doing it on humans amounts to human experimentation.

A drug that does this (blocks myostatin production) is not genetic engineering. It is a drug that uses enzyme blocking as a its method of action. This is a common action mechanism many drugs use. I'm certain the use of such a drug will be banned in competitive sports. It might be fun to try anyway, if it is eventually developed. Weight loss, treatment of individuals with low muscle mass, or even the elderly could be patients for the drug, if it is well tolerated.




so much bulk you cant move
By Sooticus on 12/9/2009 6:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
I saw a really bulky guy in the pub the other week "trying" to play pool.
His bicep interfeared with his pectoral, as a result the cue could never move in a straight line... Funny to watch.

I wonder how long it will take the child to become so bulked up that he looses the flexibility to perform everyday tasks like being able to do up his shoes.




I like this a lot.
By jordanclock on 12/10/2009 3:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
As the brother of someone with Duchene's Muscular Dystrophy, I am very excited to see the medicinal uses of this kind of therapy. I don't give a damn about overpaid athletes and all their "drug scandals." I want to see something like this used to restore muscle in people like my brother.




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki