• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Not a recreational RC but interesting!
Many substances cross over from medical treatment into sport/fitness/body building.

To play devil's advocate here for a moment: I'm aware I may be lighting blue touch-paper and hope I can retire to a safe distance in time, but it might be revealing to instigate a bit of a discussion on the following subject.

In the absence of any medical conditions, what do people think are the main differences between substances which allow people to become fit and/or healthy without performing any exercise on the one hand, and substances which allow people to be happy and/or content without accomplishing anything on the other?

*.......runs away.......*
The level of unknown and unquantifiable risk with SR9009 looks really high. It's in a relatively novel class of substances that act as agonists of the nuclear transcription factors REV-ERB alpha and beta. These look promising as potential medicines, but as yet there have been no clinical trials or even long-term animal studies. So while some of the effects may seem positive, nobody knows what the long term consequences of use might be.

SR9009 itself hasn't even been through any toxicological testing and has a nasty looking nitrothiophene group that could potentially cause it to intercalate with DNA, which suggests that carcinogenicity might be a problem. i.e. this isn't just a case of being worried about the unknown toxicity of a novel substance because it's novel, it's a case of there being a genuine risk that hasn't been ruled out.
The following is from email correspondence with the Professor who discovered this substance, taken from elsewhere on the internet:

"I just recently found out that someone is selling SR9009 in a manner that is "supported" for human use in bodybuilding. I agree with your comments. The drug does in fact alter the circadian rhythm (in mice) and we would need to assume in humans – and we don't know if it is beneficial or detrimental at this point. SR9009 was designed as a "tool" molecule to determine if we should pursue making more drug like compounds that could be used to treat disease. Of course, the data is supportive of going forward – and we are designing better compounds – but the issue is that SR9009 has several issues that make it unsuitable for human use. Firstly, it has no oral bioavailability. I know the company selling this is indicating taking it orally is ok – but it doesn't even get into the blood. At this point that is probably not a bad thing since the drug has not been evaluated in appropriate toxicology assays to determine if there are issues like inducing disease (cancer as you indicate or others). There is going to be exposure to the gut and that is not necessarily good since we don't know the effects as of yet. SR9009 has some functional groups that are known to have potential toxicology liabilities and it would never be developed as a drug. It was ok as a "tool" to figure out if we should continue to spend money and effort to get better drugs – but we had to design these "bad" functional groups out since they are know to have toxic effects in humans. So bottom line – I would never recommend using this compound at this point. That being said – we are still working on improved compounds with one of the potential uses being sarcopenia – loss of muscle and strength due to aging."

So he's urging caution, as did John W. Huffman regarding the first cannabinoids and you know the rest.

It should be noted that Niamh made identical points to this email above entirely independently.

Reddit   Facebook   Twitter  

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Any views or opinions posted by members are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UKCR staff team.