Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

MK-677/Ibutamoren What's the latest?

FlexManning

New member
I've never tried it, sounds interesting though. I mean, even if it does jack for you it's not like you're out thousands of dollars like with hgh.

As best as I can tell testing that could eventually yield a prescription drug from it is ongoing. There are some studies that indicate positive results on bone density but many of these studies are from over a decade ago.

Anybody got anything new on it, results, knowledge of studies, status as far as potential for a prescription drug, whatever?
 
That's a good question. Money maybe. As you said GH cost a lot and this, at least by comparison, doesn't. It probably isn't quite as effective (but then cheaper rarely is). Without knowing too much of the science I'm guessing GH is more like what we produce vs something which the body treats as being from outside (purely a guess).

It's worth mentioning that few SARMS, if any (I'd need to check) have become full blown pharmaceuticals yet. We know it can take a minimum of 5 years but often 10 years to come to market. I've also mentioned elsewhere a development in a low dose oral GH pill (bonded to a carrier so as to avoid being broken down in the gut as an amino acid (being a long chain amino). That in itself suggests the two points I made above (cost and effectiveness).

Finally we, as athletes (much as with steroids) don't give a fig what they were developed for. So something else either exists or something better is in development to treat what they were originally tested for as opposed to how they help build muscle :D
 
That's a good question. Money maybe. As you said GH cost a lot and this, at least by comparison, doesn't. It probably isn't quite as effective (but then cheaper rarely is). Without knowing too much of the science I'm guessing GH is more like what we produce vs something which the body treats as being from outside (purely a guess).

I

Well obviously it's going to be pretty cheap for them to produce. Is the issue maybe they don't feel like they can get away with selling something for $2k/month that has been on the black market this long for a fraction of that?
 
Thanks, interesting read.

Why do you think it hasn't become a pharmaceutical yet?

Right now it's in clinical trials. It's only a matter of time before a big pharmaceutical company catches wind and patents it and makes it illegal without a prescription.

Drug development takes a lot of time. It first needs to go through clinical trials and get FDA approved.

It most likely will become a pharmaceutical in the near future. I would say 5-10 years.
 
People seem to really like it and compare it to a low dose of HGH. The hunger side effect can be tough so be careful if you are cutting.
 
People seem to really like it and compare it to a low dose of HGH. The hunger side effect can be tough so be careful if you are cutting.

Well one thing that concerns me- and I've only really seen summaries of the studies- is I don't see a ton of results that can't be explained by an increase in appetite. GH and IGF-1 are definitely higher. That's great. But from what I've seen test subjects gained muscle but gained even more fat.

One study- and I'm just reading summaries online so I'm not sure how accurate this represents the study in question- indicated subjects gained on average 1.1kg muscle against 1.8kg fat. If I said, "I've been bulking for 12 weeks, gained 10 pounds muscle and 16 pounds fat" everybody would say, "Wow bro, you need to clean your diet up, that's bad."

So I'm optimistic but remain skeptical. Definitely will try soon.
 
Top Bottom