Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Drug Mimics the Beneficial Effects of Exercise

Posted by Soulskill on from the hide-it-in-a-brownie-and-americans-will-get-healthy dept.

Zothecula writes "A drug known as SR9009, which is currently under development at The Scripps Research Institute, increases the level of metabolic activity in skeletal muscles of mice. Treated mice become lean, develop larger muscles and can run much longer distances simply by taking SR9009, which mimics the effects of aerobic exercise. If similar effects can be obtained in people, the reversal of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and perhaps Type-II diabetes might be the very welcome result."

17 of 492 comments (clear)

  1. The alternative by Major+Ralph · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or you know, people could just go outside for a walk.

    --
    I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
    1. Re:The alternative by LoRdTAW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Easier said than done.

    2. Re:The alternative by roninmagus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ain't nobody got time for that. I say bring on the pills.

    3. Re:The alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about those who can't? Muscle wasting is a major problem that complicates a variety of injuries and conditions, this could be a breakthrough for many people just wanting to live with more mobility and less pain.

      But then I guess that doesn't occur to the blinkered "fuck you" generation.

    4. Re:The alternative by jc42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I could be reading this wrong, but it looks like life expectancy is trending upwards since the 50's. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

      You could be reading it wrong. Note that it explicitly says "life expectancy at birth". There has been a lot of criticism of this sort of things from statistics-enabled researchers, who point out that almost all of the life-expectancy gains in the past century have been through elimination of most early-childhood deaths. Life expentancy at birth has increased, but the life expectancy of someone 30 or 60 years old hasn't actually changed much.

      There has been a bit of publicity around related topics lately. Thus, there has been a lot of discussion of the apparent fact that the increase in mammograms has produced no measurable increase in lifetime, just an increase in medical bills for the testing (and the "treatment" of false positives ;-). Similar statistical problems have been reported for prostate-cancer screening, and for an assortment of other medical tests.

      Another statistical trick used to make things look better than they are is the common practice of giving cancer survival rates in terms of survival 5 years after diagnosis. This means, for example, that if you were to come up with a new test that diagnoses a cancer 5 years earlier than any existing test, your test would result in a 100% "cure" rate even with no further treatment, and no change in the death statistics. I've heard a couple of interviews in which the interviewer points out this problem, and the interviewee just continues talking about the same "5-year survival" figures.

      In general, it seems that if you're over 10 years old, modern medicine really hasn't done much in increase your (statistical) lifespan, though it is sometimes fairly good at extracting money for treatments that don't increase lifespan.

      (Perhaps some of the treatments improve quality of life, but the statistics for that don't seem to be widely studied or reported. It might be interesting to be shown wrong in this regard, however. OTOH, there has been a bit of media coverage lately of the problems with "treatment" of false positives.)

      (And a more general problem here is that the general public -- and the media -- is generally ignorant of even the most basic statistical concepts.)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  2. This can't end well by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it seems too good to be true...

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:This can't end well by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Good for the welfare generation, maybe. Entitled little shits who want everything but don't want to put in the work."

      Are boats just for lazy fucks who are too good to swim, and computers for people who lack the moral fiber for doing math in their heads?

      Why is 'putting in the work', when an engineering solution (may, research is still preliminary) offer a labor saving method of solving the same problem? Is all of applied science and engineering immoral laziness, or is there some special virtue to sweating and grunting?

  3. Speculation by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Biology being what it is, it's reasonable to think that the health benefits of exercise are a multi-factor phenomenon and that any one chemical will deliver fewer benefits than the real thing.

    Then the odds are that the drug won't be bio-equivalent to the chemical signals released by real exercise and will have side effects as a result.

    1. Re:Speculation by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or it could also be the exact opposite, perhaps it will give us the benefits of exercise without the downsides, such as the increased wear and tear in the body that exercise causes.

  4. Would probably be outlawed... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Steroids, contrary to the public perception, can be used responsibly and with few health consequences, especially by men, to more easily lose fat and gain muscle.

    It's not quite a free lunch, you can't sit on your couch and become Ronnie Coleman, but it will accelerate things.

    Oops, sorry. Because we must protect the "integrity" of sports (and the money they bring in) we decided Steroids should be scheduled drugs

    They'd probably do the same thing if something like this actually worked.

  5. Exercise is a luxury in US culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When one MUST commute 45 minutes one way, work a ten hour day, commute another 45 minutes - traffic permitting, eat, do chores, etc .. getting proper exercise is challenging to say the least.

    I'm a real fitness nut and I have to plan my day pretty carefully and set some strict limits on other people's demands on my time.

    It's extremely difficult in technology since the culture is to live to work and live at work - if you're not constantly in front of the computer, then something is wrong with you.

    1. Re:Exercise is a luxury in US culture by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't do anyone any favors by implying that your suggestions are trivial.

      I implied no such thing. If you can't see they're not trivial, you have bigger issues.

      I quit my job, moved across the country (without selling my old house), without a cushy job to fall into, just so I could spend more of my life with my family and less of it having to work to pay for that.

      So don't whine when you say you can't. You're just scared to.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Exercise is a luxury in US culture by JazzLad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thank you, was reading the entire thread before doing so, but was about to make the very same comment. I am sick to death of successful people suggesting that all you have to do is exactly what they did to be successful.

      It's not that I'm a failure, I am quite content with life at the moment, but I have had enough life experiences to know better than to think that friends of mine that struggle more than I do are just lazy or stupid. We all have our own burdens and situations and not everyone will be in a better position if they quit a horrible job.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  6. Impacts all muscles by crow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A drug that tricks the body to respond as if it has been exercising will work on all muscles. Real exercise only works on the muscles that you use. Overuse of this drug would be expected to cause muscle growth where you don't want it. Bulk up those facial muscles.

    Sure, in limited cases, this could be great. I'm thinking of cases where people can't exercise, using this in low doses to reduce the length of rehabilitation. Stuck in bed for a month or two due to a car accident? This is for you.

    Of course, if it works, it will be abused. Need to get that extra edge for the Tour de France?

  7. Re:I call bullshit. by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It must be comforting to "know" that a study must be false by virtue of the fact that you disagree with its conclusion.

    Why not? It works for politics.

  8. Re:I call bullshit. by invid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exercise doesn't make you healthy, it's your body's response to exercise that makes you healthy. Of course it can be simulated.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  9. Might not work for healthy people by erice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA:

    Previous studies on mice lacking Rev-ErbA showed decreased skeletal muscles, metabolic rate, and running capacity. Such mice appeared fated by their genetics to live as couch potatoes.

    When Burris' group administered SR9009 to these mice to activate the Rev-Erb protein, the results were remarkable. The metabolic rate in the skeletal muscles of the mice increased significantly. The treated mice were not allowed to exercise, but despite this they developed the ability to run about 50 percent further before being stopped by exhaustion.

    So they created some broken mice and then treated them with a drug that reversed what they broke. And, what do you know? The effects were reversed too.

    I'd like to see a followup on unmodified mice to see if they also benefit. If Rev-ErbA is already present and active at normal levels, the drug may not do anything.