Gwern (and whoever), I’m interested in suggestions on how I should go about estimating the effects of GW1516 on myself. It’s a research chemical with various benefits (to mice and monkeys) in terms of improving endurance and cholesterol levels. It comes in a liquid form (powder imperfectly suspended in water).
The endurance effects seem particularly hard to test, given that my endurance levels are not stable to begin with (steadily improving). For the cholesterol I guess I could just get blood tests before and after three weeks on and off the stuff. I honestly don’t think a placebo is particularly necessary for that test—it would be for the endurance levels.
The value of information is high here—it isn’t particularly cheap but the benefits are potentially significant.
From reading Taubes and noting various failures of cholesterol-modifying drugs, I’m pretty skeptical about anything to do with cholesterol (in the absence of long-term RCTs showing positive effects on total mortality), so I’ll ignore that.
If your endurance is still improving, maybe you should just wait until it’s plateaued, which it must do at some point, and then you have a clear baseline to do GW1516 on. On the other hand, an increasing baseline just means you need either more data or more sophisticated statistics (to detect deviations from the trend up or down), so if you’re already measuring your endurance performance and have some GW1516, you might as well start now.
The value of information is high here—it isn’t particularly cheap but the benefits are potentially significant.
Why is it significant? I didn’t think you were a professional athlete or anything like that. (And if you’re hoping for endurance to be useful because it correlates with other good things, you’re throwing a wrench into the works by taking such a drug, which likely affects only endurance. Correlation is not causation, as the cholesterol trials apparently often demonstrate.)
From reading Taubes and noting various failures of cholesterol-modifying drugs, I’m pretty skeptical about anything to do with cholesterol (in the absence of long-term RCTs showing positive effects on total mortality), so I’ll ignore that.
Is this because cholesterol may not be as relevant to health as some believed? Or because the drugs (statins) just don’t seem to improve total mortality much (for either the same or a different reason).
I take at times other substances that can have a significant negative side effect on cholesterol profiles. Should I just not bother trying to influence the cholesterol back towards my normal baseline?
Why is it significant?
If the cholesterol did, in fact, matter it’d be kind of neat to change it a bunch. Same with the increased fat burning.
I didn’t think you were a professional athlete or anything like that.
Just an amateur one.
And if you’re hoping for endurance to be useful because it correlates with other good things, you’re throwing a wrench into the works by taking such a drug, which likely affects only endurance.
I was rather surprised myself when they tested this and found that neurogenesis was also increased from the pharmacological activation of the muscles (including by GW1516) in the same way that actual exercise does.
Is this because cholesterol may not be as relevant to health as some believed? Or because the drugs (statins) just don’t seem to improve total mortality much (for either the same or a different reason).
Both.
Should I just not bother trying to influence the cholesterol back towards my normal baseline?
Gwern (and whoever), I’m interested in suggestions on how I should go about estimating the effects of GW1516 on myself. It’s a research chemical with various benefits (to mice and monkeys) in terms of improving endurance and cholesterol levels. It comes in a liquid form (powder imperfectly suspended in water).
The endurance effects seem particularly hard to test, given that my endurance levels are not stable to begin with (steadily improving). For the cholesterol I guess I could just get blood tests before and after three weeks on and off the stuff. I honestly don’t think a placebo is particularly necessary for that test—it would be for the endurance levels.
The value of information is high here—it isn’t particularly cheap but the benefits are potentially significant.
From reading Taubes and noting various failures of cholesterol-modifying drugs, I’m pretty skeptical about anything to do with cholesterol (in the absence of long-term RCTs showing positive effects on total mortality), so I’ll ignore that.
If your endurance is still improving, maybe you should just wait until it’s plateaued, which it must do at some point, and then you have a clear baseline to do GW1516 on. On the other hand, an increasing baseline just means you need either more data or more sophisticated statistics (to detect deviations from the trend up or down), so if you’re already measuring your endurance performance and have some GW1516, you might as well start now.
Why is it significant? I didn’t think you were a professional athlete or anything like that. (And if you’re hoping for endurance to be useful because it correlates with other good things, you’re throwing a wrench into the works by taking such a drug, which likely affects only endurance. Correlation is not causation, as the cholesterol trials apparently often demonstrate.)
Is this because cholesterol may not be as relevant to health as some believed? Or because the drugs (statins) just don’t seem to improve total mortality much (for either the same or a different reason).
I take at times other substances that can have a significant negative side effect on cholesterol profiles. Should I just not bother trying to influence the cholesterol back towards my normal baseline?
If the cholesterol did, in fact, matter it’d be kind of neat to change it a bunch. Same with the increased fat burning.
Just an amateur one.
I was rather surprised myself when they tested this and found that neurogenesis was also increased from the pharmacological activation of the muscles (including by GW1516) in the same way that actual exercise does.
Both.
Dunno. How seriously do you take it?
Cholesterol? Slightly less seriously now.