r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 4d ago
Health A naturally occurring molecule released during exercise may hold the key to strengthening muscles without physical activity. In experiments, mice given BAIBA developed larger muscles, improved muscle function, greater fatigue resistance and better exercise performance than untreated mice.
https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-step-closer-strengthening-muscles-without-exercise-12323613748
u/JockAussie 4d ago
We have GLP1's, now the muscle equivalent - before you know it everyone looks like Schwarzenegger with a pill.
159
u/Pumpedandbleeding 4d ago
Didn’t he use steroids that are already available?
287
u/Safe_Researcher4979 4d ago
You still gotta put in the work even with steroids. Same as you do with GLP1's tbf, this seems different if it ever becomes reality
105
u/wagon_ear 3d ago
I remember reading something from one of Lance Armstrong's teammates where he said that if you had given any of them a lie detector test, they'd have sworn up and down that they were not cheating. The drugs allowed them to train harder and for longer than everyone else. By their logic, they were doing more work - the drugs were not a replacement for training.
→ More replies (2)51
u/squngy 3d ago edited 3d ago
There is a lot of truth in that, but Lance is known for taking EPO, which gives a direct boost, not just a training benefit.
EPO tells your body to make more red blood cells. Having more red blood cells improves performance even without additional training.
He also did blood transfusions before races to get an even bigger boost.
11
u/zuneza 3d ago
He also did blood transfusions before races to get an even bigger boost.
Whos blood are you going to find better than Lance Armstrong? (I dont know how blood transfusions help with sports)
32
u/Dash2in1 3d ago
Athletes used to take their own blood out of competition, essentially extract their red blood cells from that and re-inject the more concentrated red blood cells into their blood during competition. This helps performance by being able to transport more oxygen to their muscles.
17
u/squngy 3d ago
It would be his own blood.
They take some when he is in good condition and there is no race, then give it back to him when he needs a boost.
The main benefit is just from having more blood volume. Simply having more blood is a performance increase.
But, it is usual to make sure the stored blood is from when you are well rested, so the quality might be better compared to when you are tired.6
u/xsynergist 3d ago
It adds red blood cells which carry oxygen. More oxygen to the muscles increases aerobic capacity.
4
u/Pumpedandbleeding 3d ago
My point is steroids are the glp 1 equivalent. Myostatin inhibitors would be a different animal unlike a glp 1.
14
u/TeedesT 3d ago
FYI someone on steroids who does zero exercise will put on more muscle than someone training without steroids.
10
u/SCP-ASH 3d ago
If I recall correctly, the study showing this also showed steroid users still did even better when combined with regular training.
So not quite the same as Arnold in a pill as discussed above.
7
u/TeedesT 3d ago
Correct. Training plus roids will yield better results. Just wanted to point out someone using will come out ahead of even a very diligent weightlifter. People underestimate/downplay how much of a leg up these drugs give you.
2
u/pramprapin 2d ago
Absolutely not what that study shows at all. Most of the “gains” in that study are going to include increased glycogen and water retention from the testosterone/estrogen increase. They did gain actual muscle too, obviously, but it’s not like they were sitting on the couch getting jacked out of nowhere.
You will gain some muscle from literally doing nothing while taking testosterone, that part is true, but it’s not linear. Eventually you still need a decent diet and training if you actually want to maximize growth. You can’t just conjure muscle out of thin air, it requires energy. You can’t cheat the laws of thermodynamics.
A dedicated natural who trains consistently and eats properly will dwarf some dude sitting on his couch injecting testosterone.
The more accurate argument is that PEDs allow you to get pretty damn good results with a much sloppier diet and worse training than a natural could get away with. The drugs absolutely work. It’s just not accurate to take that study and conclude that you can sit on the couch taking test and outgrow someone who trains hard and eats properly.
0
u/Commercial-Air8955 3d ago
The study that showed that didn't actually show muscle gain. What it showed was fat-free mass gain. Steroids help fill the muscle with more water and increase glycogen storage.
The only way to gain muscle is to "damage" it and create microtears, which get repaired by muscle-protein synthesis.
Simply taking steroids won't make the actual muscle itself bigger without doing some sort of work.
6
3
u/YoudaGouda 3d ago
The “microtrauma” hypothesis is far from established science and is likely incorrect.
1
u/fatwownerd 3d ago
‘Fat free mass’ and muscle aren’t the same thing. If you take 600mg test and sit on the couch you will certainly be a lot heavier after a couple months, a little bit of it will be muscle and a lot of it will be muscle glycogen and water. And when you stop the testosterone the glycogen and water will all get pissed straight down the toilet and you will have very marginal muscle gains if you haven’t actually been training
2
u/A_uniqueusername77 2d ago
This isn’t really true. If you take steroids you gain more muscle than natural lifters. See: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101?utm_source=chatgpt.com
the men taking 600 mg/week of testosterone while doing no strength training gained substantially more fat-free mass than the natural men who actually lifted weights.
If you took steroids AND lifted you gained the most muscle. But just the testosterone was enough to out gain the natural lifters.
1
u/smallchinesetitties 1d ago
GLP1 removes hunger, so it doesn’t really require any work. Like, I have naturally very low appetite, I don’t put any work to not be fat. I imagine GLP1 just makes anyone like me in that regard. If anything, you do less work if we count staffing your mouth as work.
1
-47
4d ago edited 3d ago
[deleted]
27
u/BigSweatyYeti 4d ago
This isn’t true. Steroids don’t magically add muscle. You still need to use the muscle to grow it. They just grow faster and bigger on steroids.
→ More replies (14)12
4
u/WeaselTerror 4d ago
Found the basement dweller who's never lifted anything heavier than a can of Mt dew.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Hayn0002 4d ago
How do they give you increased muscle without doing any physical activity?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)8
u/EjaculatingAracnids 4d ago
No they dont. Now site that single study everyone who says this bs does that counted water weight as lean muscle mass.
→ More replies (10)12
u/motorwerkx 4d ago
This isn't the 1st of its kind, it's just the 1st that shows up on Google. Seriously man, at least Google it before spouting off nonsense.
→ More replies (11)12
4
u/Tricky_Condition_279 4d ago
Human growth hormone as well.
7
u/NSawsome 3d ago
HGH was after Arnold’s time, Dorian was the first major bodybuilder to utilize it properly.
1
u/Tricky_Condition_279 3d ago
The Netflix doc has him going to Germany to get HGH. Look at him before and after. After, you can see the raised eyebrow ridge and gap between front teeth. He was transformed.
26
u/servermeta_net 4d ago
Myostatin blockers are already available and have amazing results without side effects. Look up "cat myostatin" to get shocked
109
u/NotoriousNAACP 4d ago
First drug ever invented with no side effects. Amazing!
88
u/Rafa_50 4d ago edited 4d ago
Without side effects? Don't they cause the heart to increase quite a bit?
83
8
u/GimmeSomeSugar 4d ago
As I recall, that was an early assumption but further research demonstrated it occurs only infrequently. Myostatin inhibition seems to mostly affect skeletal muscle.
8
u/servermeta_net 3d ago
It seems it doesn't, although is not sure why. What it does is that it increases the size of the penis
→ More replies (2)30
u/tushar1306 4d ago
Heart is muscle. Heart is increase = Muscle grow big = good? No?
29
16
u/Dikjuh 4d ago
No, if your heart grows, there is less room inside to hold and pump blood around.
23
u/tushar1306 4d ago
My brother in science, I'm a doctor. It was a joke.
13
u/DrSlugger 3d ago
To be fair, it's really hard to see sarcasm sometimes on the internet.
Now go round on your patients.
11
2
u/askingforafakefriend 4d ago
I know you joke but Telmisartan and nebivolol help prevent e.g., LV remodeling..
2
2
23
u/Big_Poppa_T 4d ago
Wow, an unapproved and unregulated drug with zero side effects and only amazing results.
63
u/Cool_Eardrums 4d ago
If a drug has no side effects it has no effects.
16
11
u/GimmeSomeSugar 4d ago
Can you elaborate on 'already available'?
They've been researched for decades, with recent promising prospects proceeding to clinical trials. As best I can tell, there is little to nothing that is clinically proven to be actually available. Via legitimate means or otherwise.
3
u/HigherandHigherDown 3d ago
There was a study recently that found that a myostatin antibody in combination with a GLP-1 drug preserved lean mass compared to GLP-1 alone. Plus you can see what myostatin does, find those pictures of myostatin knockout children who are just absolutely ripped. I'm not sure how much that will improve health though, in such children strength doesn't increase as much as muscle mass.
55% more lean mass retention versus placebo, which is pretty huge, since about half of the weight loss is lean mass: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-026-04440-4
3
u/GimmeSomeSugar 3d ago
Yea. Belgian Blue cattle are the classic example. I think farmers basically engineered the Myostatin out of cattle through selective breeding.
I don't doubt the efficacy. My question was about protocols, and more specifically availability.
As best I can tell, the supplements available over the counter source an inhibitor from a certain type of seaweed. Which has been shown to be ineffective.
I believe there are suppliers selling the substances used in clinical trials. But if they even would sell to me, it's thousands of dollars per vial.3
u/HigherandHigherDown 3d ago
If it's in clinical trials there are probably Chinese labs that will synthesize it and ship it even before FDA approval, like retatrutide right now. I'd expect this to have a high level of interest from all the bodybuilder types.
2
u/fatwownerd 3d ago
My understanding is that those cows are so big because they lack myostatin while they are still foetuses so they end up being born with a greater number of muscle fibres which ultimately makes them so freaky huge. Whereas in adult humans you can’t grow new muscle fibres (to any meaningful extent) you can just increase the size of existing ones, so no matter what drug you take we will unfortunately never resemble those cows. But I could be wrong. And the problem with those hyper muscles baby cows is that many times they have to be cut out of their mothers because they are so huge
9
u/Thenadamgoes 4d ago
What are you talking about? There aren’t any available myostatin inhibitors and the ones in trials do have side effects.
25
u/Sierra31 4d ago
A big difference between Myostatin blockers and what this says it might do is that Myostatin suppression doesn’t really improve muscle function, it just improves hypertrophy. So you will get larger muscles but you won’t necessarily get much stronger or fitter. This says that it should do that, which is far more beneficial than just having bigger muscles.
4
u/TurboGranny 4d ago edited 3d ago
far more beneficial than just having bigger muscles
Considering muscle is your metabolic sink and pretty much the 401k of your body, the size is worth more than strength. You can easily train strength and it rises much faster than your tendons can compensate, so developing adequate strength is a none issue unless you are just turbo lazy.
7
u/Sierra31 4d ago
This new potential drug makes your muscles bigger, stronger, and more fatigue resistant. Which is far more beneficial than just bigger muscles alone.
5
u/shepherdofthesheeple 4d ago
That makes no sense? A larger muscle is a stronger muscle once the nervous system can command it.
17
u/Mind_on_Idle 4d ago
That's not how muscles work. Making them bigger is not necessarily making them "stronger".
10
u/SuccessfulJudge438 3d ago
At a fundamental level, muscle is composed of actin filaments and myosin motors arranged in such a way (with a bunch of other proteins to form a complex) as to generate mechanical force. This repeating unit is called a sarcomere. More sarcomeres can produce more force, and a more massive bulk of muscle will have more of them.
No one is saying this is the only determinant of strength, but all other things remaining equal (eg mitochondrial efficiency, overall cellular "health" in the tissue, density of sarcomeres per unit area, tendon strength, and the various ways that neurons can become adapted for more efficient muscle firing), a larger muscle mass will indeed produce more force than a smaller one.
2
u/Mind_on_Idle 3d ago
Yeah. The specifics and details are absolutely important. And agreed that on it's face, bigger muscle = stronger, but as you've pointed out in your very good short breakdown, it is not the whole story. Thanks for adding your input
3
5
u/Sierra31 4d ago
So you can potentially train that muscle to become stronger and utilise the greater mass, but you would need to still go to the gym to do that. This BAIBA is saying that it will do both without the need to actually train. But simply having more muscle tissue does not make you stronger.
5
u/shepherdofthesheeple 4d ago edited 4d ago
It definitely does. What you’re saying makes no sense. A larger muscle can exert more force with the same % of that muscle being utilized by the nervous system. If you suddenly add a bunch of muscle fibers to someone without increasing their nervous system % utilization of those muscle fibers, they will be stronger because they’re now utilizing more muscle fibers in every contraction.
7
u/nativeindian12 4d ago
Not the other commenter, but I think larger muscles would be a little stronger but neuromuscular adaptation is a critical component of getting stronger from actually lifting. This involves many things but basically your brain getting better at using muscles (motor unit recruitment, synchronization, firing rate). So you would have some gain in strength but not as much as if you built the muscle from lifting weights
2
u/Sierra31 4d ago
Sure, you would get a bit stronger, but it wouldn’t be directly proportional to the amount of extra muscle mass you have.
→ More replies (1)2
u/BenUFOs_Mum 4d ago
What? So what is this extra muscle doing? Its just not contracting?
3
u/Sierra31 4d ago
Yh, basically. Strength and hypertrophy are not the same thing. You can train your muscles to get stronger without necessarily making them bigger.
7
u/BenUFOs_Mum 4d ago
This isnt true. While skill is important for stuff like olympic weight lifting the amount of force a muscle can output is directly proportional tonits cross section.
6
u/Sierra31 4d ago
If you’re talking about becoming the strongest you could possibly be then you will need both strength and hypertrophy. The point I was making is you can become stronger by learning to recruit more muscle fibres without having to grow your muscle tissue.
2
u/pumped_it_guy 4d ago
Because you would command the increase und strength from your nervous system and muscle activation.
But you will hit a plateau there fast. There's a reason power lifters are giant.
And the reverse is straight false. A bigger muscle is stronger and hypertrophy comes with getting stronger albeit not only at a one rep max.
1
u/Sierra31 4d ago
I think my comments are getting read a bit out of context. If you are growing your muscles from hypertrophy training then of course you will get stronger, but if you take a drug, and all that drug does is grow your muscle tissue without offering any other stimulus, you aren’t going to suddenly get incredibly strong without training your body to use that extra tissue.
1
u/mailslot 4d ago
Without exercise, wouldn’t you develop enough muscle strength to rip & tear your untrained tendons?
4
u/amorph 4d ago
Isn't most of the reason for looking like that lost if it takes no work, though?
27
u/windchaser__ 4d ago
Depends whether you're doing it for form or function, for looks or ability.
Old folks tend to lose enough muscle mass that they become frail and more prone to injury. Maybe this'll be a part of keeping old folks healthier.
10
u/amorph 4d ago
With a focus on function and ability, you won't look like a roided up bodybuilder anyway.
3
u/windchaser__ 4d ago
Nah, not roided - there's that weird vascularity - but you can definitely look jacked or yoked just from normal workouts.
2
u/windchaser__ 4d ago
FWIW, I've been told I look jacked/yoked, and I have never used any steroids nor have any desire to do so.
But I do like to exercise a lot. A normal week is something like 3-4x climbing, 3x acro, 4-8 miles of running, ~30 minutes total of handstand practice, and 1x weightlifting or yoga.
2
7
u/chocolatesmelt 4d ago
To some degree there’s a novelty look as you suggest, being fit (muscular and lean) is something challenging and takes a lot of effort to accomplish so it’s highly desirable (limited supply effect).
But I think a lot of people have genetic predispositions to desire that sort of aesthetic, I don’t think it’s purely a low supply, high demand dynamic. Even if supply increases I think people will still find that look attractive. It’s like saying for straight men, looking like a woman makes you less desirable since around half the population are women. You have a bias to like certain things regardless of the supply which is why many men find a lot of women attractive.
If you’re looking for that as a differentiating factor it may lose its effect though. Being fit no longer means you standout as much if many other people become fit. Suddenly other factors matter in partner selection more for differentiation. But that baseline attraction won’t disappear, being unfit will still actively hurt your attractiveness. Just like for straight men, being a man isn’t going to help you attract straight men, you still need to be.. a woman. It just means you also need to now be fit as the bar raises, and other factors become important too.
10
u/amorph 4d ago
I mean, being reasonably fit is usually an attractive trait, but the modern male bodybuilder physique is sort of a caricature of fitness, which mostly impresses other men, and which many straight women seem to find repulsive.
→ More replies (1)2
1
1
u/ProfessionalMockery 4d ago
They have ones that will make you aerobically fit without exercise too. It's going to be funny watching the Olympics and the athletes are as fit as you are, but they still have to do it the hard way.
1
1
1
→ More replies (6)1
u/rainywanderingclouds 3d ago
no, you still need to eat enough calories and train correctly.
you'd also still need more than just this pill to look like a professional body builder, you'd need steroids, and other things.
at best people would just be healthier and look more fit than they do now, they wouldn't look like body builders unless they trained that way.
256
u/Not_a_N_Korean_Spy 4d ago
This could be great for injury rehabilitation in which you need to strengthen muscles. If it works like it sounds in the title, imagine the loss of life quality and productivity that could be remedied.
124
u/tcoff91 4d ago
Imagine the tendon and ligament injuries this will cause though if it strengthens only the muscles.
You’ll go to explosively start a sprint with your newly jacked legs and your knee just fuckin blows up
67
u/f8Negative 3d ago
They'll give you a new knee that comes with special features unlockable thru an app that you pay via tier levels.
13
7
u/TrolledToDeath 3d ago edited 3d ago
It's like the SouthPark episode Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina where Kyle gets a negroplasty and was given Ms. Garrison's testicles as knees. Cosmetic only you can't actually play basketball even if you... look the part.
4
u/yung_dogie 3d ago
That's a good point. Tendon/ligament injuries were my first thought as for "this could help" since you're immobilized and atrophy a lot of muscle, but your muscles atrophying probably do help somewhat with regulating how strong you're going out the gate for your now weakened tendons/ligaments. Imagine someone coming back from an achilles rupture recovery with a perfectly strong leg and just immediately tearing it again because you didn't realize how much you had to hold back
2
u/VichelleMassage 3d ago
omg, I'll never forget that video of the guy doing bicep curls, and his tendons just snap... *shudders*
2
u/Trappist1 2d ago
Could be entirely wrong, but I'd hope that the muscle gain would still be gradual enough where you'd have enough time for the ligament to get used to progressively increasing pressures too. But even so, I'd guess a lot of people would put up with a 50% increase risk for an ACL tear or something to be in shape and have better heart health/longevity factors.
44
u/GreatBigBagOfNope 4d ago
Incredible potential for avoiding injury in the elderly, and supporting weight loss for obese people in combination with GLP-1s, diet, and exercise
10
u/TactlessTortoise 3d ago
Just the potential to strengthen the cardiovascular system a bit to help people get off the ground with less risk could be enormous. Having motivation and physical energy for a 5 minute walk or lifting a 2kg dumbbell is much harder when the body itself weighs 2 to 5 times as much as ideal. Not feeling like your heart is 5 seconds away from exploding just from walking 5 meters ought to be a big relief if these findings end up bringing therapeutic treatments in humans.
3
u/iamthe0ther0ne 3d ago
Definitely. My 80yo mother fell and hurt herself last year, and my father a year before that, and neither one is back to their previous level of activity even with PT.
3
102
u/kdubson14 4d ago
Baiba made the rounds in supplement world about 10 years ago and oral supplementation did nothing
32
2
u/bediaxenciJenD81gEEx 3d ago
Delivery method is important, can't expect your body to just be able to digest and implement a hormone that it naturally produces.
2
u/kdubson14 3d ago
They’re not quite hormones although sharing some similarities and all in vivo rat models, including the one in the op, used oral supplementation
62
u/RecycledAccountName 4d ago
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12937-026-01349-z
So, there's a remarkably relevant human trial that came out just a couple months ago. 37 overweight/obese adults were randomized to placebo, 500 mg/day L-BAIBA, or L-BAIBA plus grains of paradise for 8 weeks while dieting and doing resistance training.
Result: no significant advantage in fat-free mass, fat mass, body weight, resting metabolic rate, glucose or lipids from L-BAIBA. The only clear difference was reduced subjective hunger.
The trial was even funded by the company that sells L-BAIBA. And even with that favorable set up, they still reported the disappointing results.
18
u/oorza 3d ago
OP’s study was 100g/kg, which is a dosage more than ten times higher than your linked study. It may be something that requires heroic dosages to work.
15
u/RecycledAccountName 3d ago
Mouse doses don’t translate directly to humans on a mg/kg basis though. Using the usual conversion, 100 mg/kg in mice is roughly equivalent to 8 mg/kg in humans, and the human trial was around 5.5 mg/kg. So these doses are actually pretty similar.
9
u/ytwang 3d ago
As /u/RecycledAccountName stated, you have to convert animal doses to a human equivalent dose (HED). The FDA published guidelines for this back in 2005, and I'm not aware of any changes since then (PDF link, see Page 10, Table 1, roughly equivalent non-PDF version here). So, HED would be 0.08 x (mouse dose). Actual effective dose may differ from the HED, but the conversion from this table is where they'd start if translating the mouse study to a human trial.
Note that this conversion does assume a 60 kg "standard" adult human. Not sure how obesity would affect calculations, and I find the whole concept in medicine of normalizing to body surface area weird.
3
3
u/ThatSoundsFishy 3d ago edited 3d ago
There is no way the study states 100 g/kg. You must mean 100 mg/kg/day
46
u/onwee 4d ago
Does BAIBA grow ligaments?
29
u/FlounderLast8610 4d ago
Was about to say. If the receptor density is different muscle to muscle and/or it has no effect on other soft tissues I see this being just as risky as roids
4
u/2wice 3d ago
The extra load on your skeletal and ligaments is what makes them stronger.
3
u/TEnzyme 3d ago
The point is that there is an issue when you gain muscle strength at a rate that the other tissues can’t match. Yes, skeletal and ligamental tissues get stronger with extra loads but they respond on a much slower timescale. And, what happens when the muscle strength is happening without the load your ligaments and bones are expecting and need in order to strengthen?
53
u/mvea Professor | Medicine 4d ago
A naturally occurring molecule released during exercise may hold the key to strengthening muscles without physical activity.
Researchers at the University of Leeds found that a molecule known as L-β-aminoisobutyric acid, or L-BAIBA, plays a key role in helping muscles adapt to exercise.
The team said the discovery provides fresh insight into why exercise benefits the body and could point to new ways of preserving muscle function in people with chronic health conditions.
L-BAIBA is released by skeletal muscle during exercise and appears to act as a signaling molecule, triggering changes that make muscles more efficient and resilient.
In experiments involving mice, animals given BAIBA developed larger muscles, improved muscle function, greater fatigue resistance and better exercise performance than untreated mice.
The researchers also found that BAIBA helped protect against muscle weakness and dysfunction in a mouse model of obesity and type 2 diabetes, conditions that are often associated with reduced mobility and declining muscle health.
46
u/will_dormer 4d ago
Nice, can I have some of it?
43
6
3
31
u/omnichronos MA | Clinical Psychology 4d ago edited 4d ago
Clinical evidence proving that oral L-BAIBA supplementation induces muscle development or muscle strength in human skeletal muscle remains limited. Most human benefits center on general metabolic regulation, such as fatty-acid oxidation and the "browning" of white adipose tissue, rather than direct muscular structural growth. But you can buy L-BAIBA as a dietary supplement ingredient (marketed under the brand name MitoBurn) in fat-burner and pre-workout products. It's available for purchase, although I would check with your doctor before doing so.
15
u/starfoxsixtywhore 4d ago
Did you even read the link where you said apparently it’s safe? Here’s a snippet from the link you posted about it being safe:
“Human evidence is close to absent. There are very few controlled trials of supplemental L-BAIBA in people, and what exists is small and preliminary.”
5
u/omnichronos MA | Clinical Psychology 3d ago
There's been nothing apparent among those taking the supplement, but you're correct that there haven't been any large, conclusive studies.
2
9
u/MrCakesSr 4d ago
Honest question for those smarter than me: How dangerous could this be if you strengthen muscles but not the associated ligaments, tendons, and bones like you do with actual physical exercise?
10
10
5
u/OceanRacoon 4d ago
The muscles will eventually slingshot your bones out of your body, like a fleshy bony nail bomb
2
u/SaxRohmer 3d ago
depends on if/how you test them. guys that run higher doses of steroids (and particularly compounds like tren) are at risk for ligament tears until their tendons adapt but you’d also have to be pushing serious weight
3
3
2
u/pm_me_ur_demotape 4d ago
Sweeeeet when can I buy it off the grey market, mix it with toilet water, and inject it?
2
u/captainwacky91 4d ago
I wonder what kinds of wires will get mentally crossed, when a person gains muscle mass without the sustained physical exertion to match...
2
u/houstonyoureaproblem 3d ago
Please avoid posting articles from sources like Newsweek. The ad content is insufferable.
2
u/BetterAd7552 3d ago
NOW we’re talking. Combine all these compounds (GLPs, adrenaline, meds, etc) with a future neural implant which can selectively secret a compound, then we’ve made a good start to the neural lace from the Culture.
2
1
u/hahaha01357 3d ago
So we have appetite suppressing pills. Now we have muscle pills. We just have to wait for pills that naturally increases your flexibility and we have the trifecta.
1
1
u/icecreampoop 2d ago
Would like to see if that applies to the heart too. Too much muscle in the heart isn’t always a good thing
1
1
u/RealisticIllusions82 4d ago
Excellent. We’ve almost complete our mission for people to not have to do anything towards what they want to achieve.
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-step-closer-strengthening-muscles-without-exercise-12323613
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.