Slashdot Mirror


Super Strength Substance Approaching Human Trials

kkleiner writes "You may remember Liam Hoekstra, the baby apparently born without the myostatin gene, and consequently sporting 40% more skeletal muscle than his peers. Using gene therapy, NCH scientists have been able to get follistatin (a myostatin blocker) to promote phenomenal muscle growth in macaque monkeys. NCH is now working with the FDA to perform the preliminary steps necessary for a human clinical trial. Is this the prelude to a super-strength gene therapy for all of us?"

19 of 425 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Classic Super Villain Birth by HBoar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Unless, of course, we manage to capture the super humans in time and send them all into space in suspended animation on a cargo ship.

  2. Now I'll never finish my fortress! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    My dwarves are going to be 100% more terrified when the monkeys have super strength!

  3. Re:Classic Super Villain Birth by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Funny

    trying to muscle in with a star trek reference, eh?

    I don't think you khannnnnnnnnnnn!

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  4. No by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, not all of us.

    Just soldiers and government agents.

  5. Re:Obvious (?) question by cl0ckt0wer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It could cure obesity: more muscles increases your resting metabolic rate. Just increase muscle mass to the point where your digestive tract is overwhelmed, and you start burning fat, no matter what you eat. Kind of like the movie "thinner", but this one would be called "muscular". That brings up interesting questions about what happens when your musculo-skeletal system and your nervous system start fighting for calories. The stereotypical big dumb guy? And isn't this gene therapy, where one shot changes your DNA for life? Culturally, this will hit the fitness industry like a bombshell. Billions are spent annually on looking "ripped". Here's the real deal. Pretty soon, you won't get laid without it.

  6. Re:Obvious (?) question by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Funny

    We would need to eat a lot more than the normal human needs to.

    The diet of the average American should just about cover it.

  7. Re:Obvious (?) question by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pretty soon, you won't get laid without it. I think I speak for many slashdotters when I ask, "how is that any different from my current situation?"

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  8. Re:Obvious (?) question by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would imagine that this would be incredibly useful to those with muscle wasting diseases.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  9. Re:Classic Super Villain Birth by Ryvar · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I refresh Slashdot next week the only thing I'm going to see is a dupe of this story.

  10. Re:Obvious (?) question by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And astronauts: the muscular atrophy they experience at zero gee is quite profound, and is a real risk to extended space station or possible Mars missions.

  11. Re:Obvious (?) question by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 5, Informative

    No need to guess, from TFA:

    "The National Children's Hospital interest in myostatin is not to create super strong children, but to help those children whose muscles have already atrophied. Muscular Dystrophy (MD) affects thousands of children in the US who slowly lose muscle and rarely survive into adulthood. Follistatin gene therapy could serve as a method to extend their lives or perhaps even reverse the symptoms of their conditions. Likewise, the eldery are susceptible to several diseases that lead to a loss of muscle strength and coordination. By blocking myostatin, we may all be able to live with the strength of our youth even as we age into our 80s."

  12. Re:Obvious (?) question by timeOday · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sure you're right, but I'll bet the main commercial application will be found in super-meaty chickens and cows.

  13. Re:consequences by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Seems like there is probably a reason we have myostatin and if you disable
    > it, other health problems may result.

    You'll need to eat more.

    And no, that isn't a joke. There is strong evolutionary pressure for nutritional efficiency. Carrying around muscles you don't need uses up calories you could have used to live through the drought. Not a problem now for most humans, but it really mattered for all animals until fairly recently.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  14. Skeptical about significant increase Caloric Needs by axjms · · Score: 5, Informative

    While true that muscle burns more calories at rest and that a more heavier, more muscular person needs more calories than a lighter, thinner person I think most slashdotters are overestimating the effects. I mean the little hulk kid is growing too. All toddlers eat like little monsters. Anyway, a pound of muscle at rest burns 35 to 50 calories a day, so up to 500 calories for ten pounds of new muscle per day. So lets do some quick math. The average American male is made up of about 42% skeletal muscle, which at 185 lbs that is roughly 75 pounds of muscle. If you increase the muscle mass by 40% (Yes, I RTFA) that is about 30 lbs of new muscle. Pretty awesome when you think about it, but that still only burns an extra 1500 calories a day max. Most Americans overeat that amount anyway. I don't think anyone would be starving, they would just be harder and fitter. A big mac has over 500 calories to put that into perspective.

    I think a more interesting question is what do you do if this is readily available, cheap and easy to use? Would you do it? What if you are an active amateur cyclist working your way up the local ranks? They guys are gonna love you coming in with your extra 30 lbs of muscle and storm by them up the local hill. Do we start over with all the record books? This isn't exactly roids but it isn't exactly a tough training plan that you earned your fitness with either.

    --
    It is not enough to succeed, others must fail. - Gore Vidal
  15. Re:Super Soldiers? by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since the US adopted a policy of only fighting wars against tiny Orientals or half-starved Arabs, they're already 40% stronger than the opposition.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  16. I'll wait... by alispguru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... until the joint and bone strengthening pills are also available.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  17. Re:Obvious (?) question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yours never shuts up either, eh?

  18. Re:Skeptical about significant increase Caloric Ne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ah, the old 'lactic acid' canard. Lactic acid as a cause of muscle fatigue was debunked years ago. Get with the program people.

    http://www.mensfitness.com/fitness/203
    Lactic acid does not cause muscle fatigue.

    "How It Started: Research conducted nearly 100 years ago (on frog muscles, no less) suggested that lactic-acid levels within muscles increased with fatigue.

    The Truth: "Lactic acid increases with fatigue because it's fueling your muscle contractions," says Chad Waterbury, a strength coach in Los Angeles. It causes the painful burning sensation in your muscles that makes you want to stop lifting, but your liver is also converting lactic acid into more energy, so it's actually helping to offset fatigue. Muscle fatigue is prompted by an accumulation of protons within the muscles, which is caused by the breakdown of glycogen, the stored carbohydrate that helps to fuel exercise."

    In one study, animal muscles were injected with lactic acid and actually performed longer with less fatigue, thoroughly and forever debunking the idea.

  19. Re:Obvious (?) question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    My research focuses almost exclusively on muscular dystrophy(MD) and I can tell you, with near certainty, that this approach will not help these patients. The problem with MD is that the whole regenerative process breaks down. Follistatin only acts within the framework of normal muscle regeneration. The problem is that these kids exhaust their normal regeneration abilities at an early age.

    Muscle has remarkable regenerative potential due to a population of muscle stem cells. Follistatin enhances the regenerative response of these cells. The problem with MD is that these cells lose their regenerative potential as these patients approach adulthood. Instead of differentiating into muscle tissue, muscle stem cells turn into fibrotic scar tissue. These patients don't need an exaggerated stem cell response, they need something that promotes the normal regenerative process. On that front, therapies that antagonize TGF signalling are showing far more promise.