Pepdexpepdex
← All compounds

Cardarine

GW-501516 / GW / Endurobol, GW-0742 · PPAR-delta agonist (unapproved)

Research reference only. Pepdex does not sell, supply or track this compound, and nothing here is guidance to use it — this page exists so the evidence and the risks are visible.

What it is

An abandoned GlaxoSmithKline drug candidate that shifts muscle fuel metabolism toward fat oxidation — known for rodent endurance findings, and for why development stopped. GW-0742 is a closely related compound from the same program.

How it works

Cardarine (GW501516) activates PPAR-delta, a nuclear receptor that switches on genes governing how cells use fat for fuel. In animals that shifts muscle toward fat oxidation and raises endurance, which is the entire basis of its reputation as "exercise in a pill". What ended its development was rodent carcinogenicity — tumours at multiple sites. Whether PPAR-delta activation is itself the causal pathway is NOT settled: the developer's own abstracts say some tumours may reflect it while noting conflicting proliferation findings elsewhere.

What human evidence shows

Early human trials showed lipid changes; the endurance results the marketing quotes are rodent data. Development was terminated after long-term rodent studies produced tumors at multiple sites; human relevance and any safe exposure threshold are unknown.

The studies, one by one

  • NONE SHOWN for the endurance and fat-loss use it is sold for, and no clinical outcome benefit was ever demonstrated. That is narrower than "no human evidence": the trials did establish statistically significant changes in HDL, LDL, triglycerides and apolipoproteins.
  • The human programme was not trivial: a randomised double-blind trial enrolled 268 participants with fasting HDL change at 12 weeks as its prespecified primary outcome, alongside a 37-participant exploratory study and an earlier 24-participant healthy-volunteer study. Those measured lipid markers, not endurance or fat loss.
  • The decisive evidence is preclinical toxicology. The developer's published abstracts reported treatment-related tumours at multiple sites and at all tested dose levels in rats, and liver, stomach and combined squamous tumours in mice. Note these are conference abstracts rather than full public study reports, and the exact causal pathway and its human relevance remain unresolved — the developer's own abstracts describe conflicting proliferation findings.
  • Development was halted or placed on hold across 2006-07 following preclinical toxicity findings. WADA has issued a rare direct public warning to athletes about it, citing serious toxicities in the plural — carcinogenicity is the dominant publicly known concern but not the only preclinical one; skeletal-muscle lesions were also reported in rats.
  • Short-term human exposure and adverse-event data do exist from the clinical programme. What does not exist is any adequate long-term human safety dataset, and short trials cannot bound a long-latency carcinogenic risk.

Half-life and how long it lasts

Orally active. Human pharmacokinetics are poorly characterised because development stopped early. It is prohibited in sport. What is sold is research-chemical supply of unverified identity and purity, and analytical work on this category routinely finds products that are not what the label says.

Risks

The carcinogenicity finding is THE risk: multi-site tumors in both sexes of both rodent species, with no human long-term data to bound it. Community reassurance about doses and durations is exposure math without a human dataset behind it. WADA-prohibited.

Who should never touch it

  • Everyone — a compound whose development was halted over rodent tumours at multiple sites, with no adequate long-term human safety data
  • No human data identifies any lower-risk group, so an absent family history is not reassurance
  • Anyone in tested sport, where WADA has issued a direct warning

Interactions worth knowing

  • No characterised human interaction profile exists.
  • Any tested sport, where it is prohibited and WADA has warned about it directly.

What a clinician would watch

  • There is no validated surveillance test that can quantify or exclude a future GW501516-related cancer risk, and presenting a lab panel here would imply a safety that does not exist. That is NOT a reason to skip ordinary cancer screening or to ignore symptoms — routine screening and prompt evaluation of anything new still matter, and matter more rather than less.
  • The honest framing: this is a compound whose development was halted by rodent tumours at multiple sites, being used without adequate long-term human safety data.

What stopping looks like

No withdrawal syndrome has been established — the human trials were short and were not designed to look for one. The concern is not a reversible physiological effect: a long-latency carcinogenic risk would not announce itself on stopping, and no validated test can quantify or exclude it afterwards. Ordinary cancer screening and prompt evaluation of new symptoms still apply.

Myth vs evidence

The cancer findings were at absurd doses that do not apply to humans.

In rats the developer reported treatment-related tumours at multiple sites and at ALL tested dose levels, which is the detail that matters. Human relevance is unresolved rather than excluded, and no human exposure has been shown to be free of that risk.

It is not a steroid, so it is safer.

It is not an androgen, which means it avoids androgenic problems and has an entirely different one. Different is not safer.

Short cycles avoid the risk.

Carcinogenic risk from a proliferative mechanism is not something a duration rule has been shown to control, and no human data addresses it either way.

Legal status

US: not FDA-approved for human use; unscheduled. The FDA has warned about this product category, and marketing it for human use may violate the FD&C Act.

Research on this compound

Papers about this compound, not proof of the claims above. A title says what was studied, which is sometimes a negative result or a different question entirely.

Evidence base

B366 research papers
substantial literature

Real human evidence: randomised trial reports, or review-level evidence backed by at least one human trial report.

phase 3/4
0
randomised
4
reviews
0
human trials
6

Counts are of published papers, not distinct trials, and they nest rather than add up: PubMed files every randomised trial as a clinical trial too. They measure how much research exists — not whether this works or is safe for you.

Research (12)

Turn Cardarine into a plan that's yours

The info above is free. Membership makes it personal, the Coach answers questions about your exact stack, the Stack tracks it for you, and the Verified Sources shows you how to vet what you buy.

  • AI Coach, ask anything about your stack. It does the dosing math, flags interactions, and tells you what to do next.
  • Personal Stack, save your protocol, track it across devices, log doses, get a heads-up before a vial runs out.
  • Verified Sources, the vetted reference for checking quality and sourcing, members only.
Become a member, from $4.99/week

Cancel anytime · or save with $59.99/yr · Coach + Stack included

Where next