Kortykosteroidy jako dopingStosowanie dopingu jest nieuczciwym i niemoralnym zachowaniem. Trening w domu Z archiwum kulturystyki Targowisko Szybkie pytania bez logowania. THG tetrahydrogestrinonclenbuterol, nandrolon, stanazolol. Tutaj fragment z gazeta. Kortykosteroidy jako doping to prawdopodobnie najsilniej wspierana badaniami dziedzina medycyny.
Kortyzol (art) - Forum SFD
Stosowanie dopingu jest nieuczciwym i niemoralnym zachowaniem. Trening w domu Z archiwum kulturystyki Targowisko Szybkie pytania bez logowania. THG tetrahydrogestrinon , clenbuterol, nandrolon, stanazolol. Tutaj fragment z gazeta. Jest to prawdopodobnie najsilniej wspierana badaniami dziedzina medycyny.
A new form of gene therapy being developed to help people with muscle-wasting disease could be used to enhance athletic performance through "gene doping". The scientist leading the research, Lee Sweeney of the University of Pennsylvania, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science about a new study in his laboratory in which genes for a growth factor called IGF-1 were injected into the hind legs of rats.
The animals then spent a few weeks on a "weight training protocol". The muscles in the legs injected with IGF-1 gained twice as much strength as the uninjected legs, Dr Sweeney said. But Dr Sweeney said the tests showed it "could also be used in healthy adults to build muscle strength and make muscle more resistant to damage".
Richard Pound, chancellor of McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, who is chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency told the meeting the development of genetic enhancements for athletes paralleled that of performance-enhancing drugs 30 or 40 years ago, when detection techniques and regulatory mechanisms were not in place.
In recent years, the International Olympic Committee and other sports organizations have worried about the possible misuse of gene-transfer technology. But the sports world seems intent on exploiting this technology in pursuit of gold medals and championships, and genetic testing may be the wave of the future. Two Australian Football League teams have hinted that they are looking into tests that would indicate an athlete's likely height, stamina, speed and strength.
Indeed, for some, "gene doping" now represents the Holy Grail of performance enhancement, while for others it means the end of sports as we know it. The prospect of a future of genetically modified athletes incites alarm throughout the sports world, accompanied by portrayals of such athletes as inhuman or some form of mutant.
This is a misrepresentation of how gene transfer would alter humans, both therapeutically and non-therapeutically, should it ever be legalized. But the fear that rogue scientists will take advantage of athletes -- or that athletes will seek to enroll in gene-transfer experiments in an attempt to receive some undetectable performance benefit -- is very real.
It is in this context that the debate about gene doping erupted during last year's Olympics in Athens. Unfortunately, because the discussion has so far been dominated by moral panic over the state of sports, many ethical considerations and important questions have been excluded.
Get local Policies concerning gene doping should not rely solely on the interests and infrastructures of sports organizations.
In particular, the monitoring committees on genetic technology that nations develop must be taken on board by the world of sport. A simple model based on prohibition and testing for gene modification will not be enough, assuming that detection is possible at all.
Moreover, ethics committees must be made aware of the special circumstances of sports, which limit the effectiveness of broader social policies on genetic modification. Again, regulation ought not to rely on one single global authority. As has been made clear from the ethical debates on stem-cell research, a global policy cannot easily be adopted or enforced, nor should it be.
This cannot involve the creation of working groups that merely pay lip service to ethical debate, but must enable non-sports organizations to develop their own policy framework for the regulation of "gene doping" and, more broadly, the use of genetic information.
Policies governing gene transfer in sports must, therefore, be recognized as subservient to broader bio-ethical and bio-legal interests that recognize the changing role of genetics in society. The rhetoric surrounding "gene doping" relies heavily on its moral status as a form of cheating. Yet, this status relies on existing anti-doping rules. If we don't ban gene transfer in the first place, then on one level, it is not cheating. Mutants In any case, to describe genetically modified athletes as mutants or inhuman is morally suspect, for it invokes the same kind of prejudice that we deplore in relation to other biological characteristics, particularly race, gender and disability.
After all, many, if not most, top athletes are "naturally" genetically gifted. To refer to these people as mutants would surely invite widespread criticism. Those who fear that gene doping heralds the "end of sports" should instead recognize this moment as an opportunity to ask critical and difficult questions about the effectiveness and validity of anti-doping tests. Does society really care about performance enhancement in sport?
That may sound like a radical question. But advancement in ethical inquiry relies on the conflict of beliefs and values. For many years, commentators have expressed concerns about the culture of doping in elite sport. Yet, the culture of anti-doping is equally alarming, because it embodies a dogmatic commitment that limits the capacity for critical debate over what really matters in sport.
If anti-doping authorities truly care about sports, then they have a responsibility to re-examine the basic values that underpin their work. They should begin by imagining what would happen if the child of a genetically modified human wanted to become an elite athlete. At the very least, they might then be less prone to imposing the narrow moral position of the sports world on the parent How effective really is injectable IGF? Finally research had been done that shows us exactly how effective the IGF we use to inj is compared to the gene doping research that most of the studies boasting IGF claims are based on.
Gene transfer was superior by no surprise, but what is good news is that IGF-I hastened functional recovery, regardless of the route of IGF-I administration. The systemic IGF took a whole 7 days to give the same muscle recovery as the gene doping did, 21 dasy compared to This is because it is easier for gene doping to result in the intracellular signaling.
Below is another study that shows that systemic IGF is effective at repairing muscles in mice with MD. Developing methodologies to enhance skeletal muscle regeneration and hasten the restoration of muscle function has important implications for minimizing disability after injury and for treating muscle diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Although delivery of various growth factors, such as insulin-like growth factor-I IGF-I , have proved successful in promoting skeletal muscle regeneration after injury, no study has compared the efficacy of different delivery methods directly.
We compared the efficacy of systemic delivery of recombinant IGF-I protein via mini-osmotic pump approximately 1.
The relative efficacy of each method was assessed at 7, 21 and 28 days post-injury. However, gene transfer of IGF-I was superior to systemic protein administration because in the regenerating muscle, this delivery method increased IGF-I levels, activated intracellular signals Akt phosphorylation , induced a greater magnitude of myofiber hypertrophy and hastened functional recovery at an earlier time point 14 days after injury than did protein administration 21 days.
Thus, the relative efficacy of different modes of delivery is an important consideration when assessing the therapeutic potential of various proteins for treating muscle injuries and skeletal muscle diseases. Gene Therapy advance online publication, 27 July ; doi: Systemic administration of IGF-I enhances oxidative status and reduces contraction-induced injury in skeletal muscles of mdx dystrophic mice.
The absence of dystrophin and resultant disruption of the dystrophin glycoprotein complex renders skeletal muscles of dystrophic patients and dystrophic mdx mice susceptible to contraction-induced injury. Strategies to reduce contraction-induced injury are of critical importance, because this mode of damage contributes to the etiology of myofiber breakdown in the dystrophic pathology. Transgenic overexpression of insulin-like growth factor-I IGF-I causes myofiber hypertrophy, increases force production, and can improve the dystrophic pathology in mdx mice.
In contrast, the predominant effect of continuous exogenous administration of IGF-I to mdx mice at a low dose 1. We found that exogenous administration of IGF-I to mdx mice increased myofiber succinate dehydrogenase activity, shifted the overall myosin heavy chain isoform composition toward a slower phenotype, and, most importantly, reduced contraction-induced damage in tibialis anterior muscles.
The results provide further evidence that IGF-I administration can enhance the functional properties of dystrophic skeletal muscle and, compared with results in transgenic mice or virus-mediated overexpression, highlight the disparities in different models of endocrine factor delivery.
More than a century ago, livestock breeders in Europe observed that some of their cattle were more muscled than others. Being dabblers in genetics, they selectively bred these cattle to increase the progeny displaying this trait. Thus two breeds of cattle Belgian Blue and Piedmontese were developed that typically exhibit an increase in muscle mass relative to other conventional cattle breeds. Little did they know that many years later Mighty Mouse would be more than merely a cartoon.
A team of scientists led by McPherron and Lee at John Hopkins University was investigating a group of proteins that regulate cell growth and differentiation. Myostatin, the protein that the gene encodes, is a member of a superfamily of related molecules called transforming growth factors beta TGF-b. It is also referred to as growth and differentiation factor-8 GDF By knocking out the gene for myostatin in mice, they were able to show that the transgenic mice developed two to three times more muscle than mice that contained the same gene intact.
Lee commented that the myostatin gene knockout mice "look like Schwarzenegger mice. Further exploration of genes present in skeletal muscle in the two breeds of double-muscled cattle revealed mutations in the gene that codes for myostatin. The double-muscling trait of the myostatin gene knockout mice and the double-muscled cattle demonstrates that myostatin performs the same biological function in these two species.
Apparently, myostatin may inhibit the growth of skeletal muscle. Knocking out the gene in transgenic mice or mutations in the gene such as in the double-muscled cattle result in larger muscle mass.
This discovery has paved the way for a plethora of futuristic implications from breeding super-muscled livestock to treatment of human muscle wasting diseases.
Researchers are developing methods to interfere with expression and function of myostatin and its gene to produce commercial livestock that have more muscle mass and less fat content.
Myostatin inhibitors may be developed to treat muscle wasting in human disorders such as muscular dystrophy. However, several public media sources immediately raised the issue of abusing myostatin inhibitors by athletes.
In addition, a hypothesis has been put forth that a genetic propensity for high levels of myostatin is responsible for the lack of muscle gain in weight trainees. Accordingly, this article presents a look at the science of myostatin and its implications for the athletic arena. Growth Factors Before we can understand the implications of tampering with myostatin and its gene, we must learn what myostatin is and what it does. Higher organisms are comprised of many different types of cells whose growth, development and function must be coordinated for the function of individual tissues and the entire organism.
This is attainable by specific intercellular signals, which control tissue growth, development and function. These molecular signals elicit a cascade of events in the target cells, referred to as cell signaling, leading to an ultimate response in or by the cell.
Classical hormones are long-range signaling molecules called endocrine. These substances are produced and secreted by cells or tissues and circulated through the blood supply and other bodily fluids to influence the activity of cells or tissues elsewhere in the body.
However, growth factors are typically synthesized by cells and affect cellular function of the same cell autocrine or another cell nearby paracrine. These molecules are the determinants of cell differentiation, growth, motility, gene expression, and how a group of cells function as a tissue or organ.
Growth factors GF are normally effective in very low concentrations and have high affinity for their corresponding receptors on target cells. For each type of GF there is a specific receptor in the cell membrane or nucleus.
A GF may have different biological effects depending on the type of cell with which it interacts. The response of a target cell depends greatly on the receptors that cell expresses. Some GFs, such as insulin-like growth factor-I, have broad specificity and affect many classes of cells. Others act only on one cell type and elicit a specific response.
Many growth factors promote or inhibit cellular function and may be multifactoral. In other words, two or more substances may be required to induce a specific cellular response. Proliferation, growth and development of most cells require a specific combination of GFs rather than a single GF.