ostarine vs andarine

djbombsquad · 05-06-2008, 02:24 PM

What is the difference?

djbombsquad · 05-08-2008, 02:20 PM

bump?!?!?

Bobaslaw · 05-08-2008, 03:39 PM

Both are SARMs that were created by GTX for different purposes.
It seems the target market for Ostarine is Andropause and the target for Andarine are Cancer Patients as it supposedly flys under the radar of cancer and does not stimulate its growth.

Couple of links:

Ostarine
http://www.ergogenics.org/ostarine.html

Andarine
http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/s...07/story1.html

djbombsquad · 05-09-2008, 11:47 AM

Thanks. That is what I figured. Im glad you cleared things up for me.

Bobaslaw · 05-09-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djbombsquad

Thanks. That is what I figured. Im glad you cleared things up for me.

NP

Wish there was more detailed info, however have not found much more than this...

djbombsquad · 05-09-2008, 07:12 PM

So do you think its safe to start using sarms. I know its fairly new as far as still not in phaze 3 fda testing.

Bobaslaw · 05-09-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djbombsquad

So do you think its safe to start using sarms. I know its fairly new as far as still not in phaze 3 fda testing.

Safe compared to what, a bowl of tapioca pudding??

Not like research peptides are in ANY phase of FDA testing and we use those based on our own research info and anecdotal evidence.
Same can be said about steroids, the way we use them here.

Wait a bit and see if BabyBlu keeps posting while running S-4. As long as he does, thats enough for me

djbombsquad · 05-09-2008, 10:36 PM

Your right. Soon as I can afford it I would love to try it.

I was thinking safe compared to superdrol haladrol pp, epistane etc. Maybe a stack? I still have some HD and PP left and epistane. For a future cycle.

SOLARUS · 05-09-2008, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobaslaw

Wait a bit and see if BabyBlu keeps posting while running S-4. As long as he does, thats enough for me

i saw the clinical profile on S-4 and was far from impressed....plus i make a point not to listen to the salesman when considering a purchase.

i believe there is a future to SARMs, but i dont think S-4 is it...

Bobaslaw · 05-10-2008, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOLARUS

i saw the clinical profile on S-4 and was far from impressed....plus i make a point not to listen to the salesman when considering a purchase.

i believe there is a future to SARMs, but i dont think S-4 is it...

I agree. I did not see anything striking about S-4 on paper.

I'd rather wait for SARMS that are not selective for the pituitary and hypothalamus than the prostate and such...

djbombsquad · 05-10-2008, 01:16 PM

On a scale of 1-11 so the effectiveness seems like a 7 out of 11.

Bobaslaw · 05-10-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djbombsquad

On a scale of 1-11 so the effectiveness seems like a 7 out of 11.

hmmm. effectiveness? what effect are you judging. Strength, Hypertrophy, Liver Values, HDL/LDL, etc? What are you comparing this to? Test, Deca, Tren, etc?
Pretty general statement, and in itself has no real meaning.

BTW, why "1-11"?!

On a scale of 9 to -5, my confusion level is a 11 here

djbombsquad · 05-10-2008, 06:21 PM

Well I was thinking like strength, size compared to like superdrol, epistane. I know the sides are way better than something like superdrol hyperdrol etc no liver toxicity; no affect on the prostate no effect on breast tissue no effect on the heart and minimal effect on HPTA I know. I was thinking maybe stack with a low dose of epistane or low dose of superdrol.

SOLARUS · 05-11-2008, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobaslaw

hmmm. effectiveness? what effect are you judging. Strength, Hypertrophy, Liver Values, HDL/LDL, etc? What are you comparing this to? Test, Deca, Tren, etc?
Pretty general statement, and in itself has no real meaning.

BTW, why "1-11"?!

On a scale of 9 to -5, my confusion level is a 11 here

lol....on a scale of leprechauns to boll weevils my confusion is a Model T Ford.

Bobaslaw · 05-11-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOLARUS

lol....on a scale of leprechauns to boll weevils my confusion is a Model T Ford.

LOL! I'm still trying to figure out which is the better end of your scale.
Actually I think I'll go with the Leprechaun!

**TheCrownedOne** · 05-11-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOLARUS

i saw the clinical profile on S-4 and was far from impressed....plus i make a point not to listen to the salesman when considering a purchase.

i believe there is a future to SARMs, but i dont think S-4 is it...

Second that.

comacho · 05-11-2008, 12:30 PM

once my injury heals i will do a full two month cycle of S4 at 200mg/day

i maybe running that with some peps but depends on timing.

currently doing 3on 4 off using S4 (200mg/day),its a new way of pulsing, talked to some people that has done that with mdrol and such with no sides for months, where regular pulse fck people up.

lets not debate about that pulse...just letting you know i will be logging soon after my tri's heal.

so far on 'ON' days, i feel good psychologically, not much growth, just hardness i feel during 3days of on, wonder how others will do at higher dosage and longer duration?

when i first heard of S4 i was let down that it still affected HPTA, but nontheless it sounds interesting so im taking it.

i would love to try future SARM's that wont affect HPTA and only muscles....sweeet! i will be on something like that rest of my life.

imagine females using these stuff with no androgenic sides, thats going to replace alot of chemicals in the future, anxillary and so on. **** it will replace everything for both men and women.

babyblu · 05-12-2008, 08:21 AM

Well I havent seen any conclusive research evidence that S-4 has a significant negative impact on the HPTA. In fact GTX claims that SARMS enhance libido. I know that my libido currently is about normal for me. Ejaculate amounts are not down. I think the thing that most people forget about the human studies done on S-4 is that the sample group were men in their 60s-80's I believe. So people look at the study and say that the amount of LBM increase after 3 months was only like 6 lbs. But I would wager that 500mg of test enth a week would not put on much more LBM on men in their 60-80s with NO exercise. Now of course test enth would probably put on a significant amt of water weight to men no matter their age but actual lbm (again in light of no exercise routine) would be minimal. So you have to put S-4 studies (like everything in this world) into the proper context.

Im not making any projections on this stuff. Im just hopeful and also I did notice an increase in vascularity the last couple of days. Last night I noticed a 'new' vein in the lower palm of my hand, under my thumb. Odd.

bb

djbombsquad · 05-12-2008, 02:24 PM

Humm. This is defiantly the future.

Bobaslaw · 05-12-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babyblu

Last night I noticed a 'new' vein in the lower palm of my hand, under my thumb. Odd.
bb

Damn, thats pretty intense BB. If things keep up at this pace, pretty soon you may have to change your name to "BabyBluVeins"

pistonpump · 05-12-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djbombsquad

Your right. Soon as I can afford it I would love to try it.

I was thinking safe compared to superdrol haladrol pp, epistane etc. Maybe a stack? I still have some HD and PP left and epistane. For a future cycle.

arent you like 18 or something?

djbombsquad · 05-13-2008, 12:10 AM

Would you like me to be 18?

My biological age is 16 but I am a lot older than 18.

pumbertot · 05-13-2008, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djbombsquad

Would you like me to be 18?

My biological age is 16 but I am a lot older than 18.

i think he saying at such a young age you shouldnt be f*cking around with hormones.

pistonpump · 05-13-2008, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumbertot

i think he saying at such a young age you shouldnt be f*cking around with hormones.

exactly. too young.

djbombsquad · 05-13-2008, 11:17 AM

I am around the corner to becomming 25. I don't know how young that is in comparison to 18 years of age but I think thats not to too young and plus I was just curious.

Bobaslaw · 05-13-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djbombsquad

Would you like me to be 18?

My biological age is 16 but I am a lot older than 18.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djbombsquad

I am around the corner to becomming 25. I don't know how young that is in comparison to 18 years of age but I think thats not to too young and plus I was just curious.

Dude, you are confusing as hell to have a reasonable conversation on this topic.... You're biological age is 16 and youre close to becoming 25!?! WTF!?!

djbombsquad · 05-13-2008, 02:16 PM

My chronological age is 24 my actual years but I am aging at at a slower rate so the doctor said Im around the age of 16. I think I said it correctly.

Bobaslaw · 05-13-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djbombsquad

My chronological age is 24 my actual years but I am aging at at a slower rate so the doctor said Im around the age of 16. I think I said it correctly.

Ahh... I see. If I may ask, what are you diagnosed with exactly? If that's too personal for the forum, I completely understand. Just wanted to know if you are biologically still in a pubertal phase as exhibited by your endogenous hormonal levels (test, IGF-1, etc).

babyblu · 05-13-2008, 03:42 PM

I am lowering my dosage of S-4 from 150mg to 100mg/day. I am VERY aggressive and moody and irritable.

bb

pistonpump · 05-13-2008, 06:13 PM

ive read the write up but what exactly is s-4