It should be at least as good as steroids for enhancing muscle growth but without any of the serious negative effects.
Related questions
@8 you don't have to be "that" kind of jacked, but even if you just want some decent muscle growth you can achieve it faster with for example steroids
@StetsonThacker I think you're mostly wrong about that, it's just that it's a relatively hard problem. Given the amount of R&D money thrown at it yearly by major corporations/institutions, I think the biohacking community has correctly determined that any low hanging fruit was plucked decades ago and would only touch the subject if someone had a novel/underexplored approach.
@AndrewHartman Isn't this proving my point? Nothing comes without tradeoffs. Increasing anabolism pharmaceutically or even with traditional approaches (lots of food and lifting) comes with costs (time, effort, healthspan).
@StetsonThacker I don't think fundamental physical limits act as hard constraints on this. The reason we do not have much muscle without lots of work is just optimization for past low-calorie-availability environments.
@osmarks check out Geoff West's work on body scaling and thermodynamic constraints on lifespan.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41413-022-00225-w is vaguely promising but it takes time for these things to get to humans, if it even works in humans.
