- 09-06-2009, 11:17 AM
I just read this thread where there were a number of references made to SARM's which I hadn't read about before... Anyway, I just spent the last couple of hours reading up on them both on and outside this site and they look pretty amazing overall!
For anyone interested, here is a good write-up I found on SARM's:
Making Testosterone Obsolete – a look at SARMs
By Anthony Roberts
Sitting on my desk next to a pile of books, magazines and half eaten Chinese food is the future of athletics in a bottle. And it didn’t even involve harvesting Michael Phelps’ DNA.
The bottle itself is unassuming enough; less than four inches high, royal blue, medicine-dropper-top shrink wrapped around, and half filled with fluid. There are small crystals stretching far above the line where the liquid has stopped, a sign that the amateur chemist who suspended the active powder in poly(ethylene) glycol didn’t get it to totally dissolve. Swirling it around makes the crystals float awkwardly and retreat back into the viscous oil; my own clandestine performance enhancing snow globe.
It’s not from BALCO, and it’s not some new undetectable steroid. It’s not even a steroid. It’s better.
Anabolic steroids work by stimulating a receptor within the body called (you guessed it) the androgen receptor. Most of the effects athletes experience on steroids has to do with this steroid/receptor interaction. This innocuous looking bottle on my desktop is filled with something that has the ability to stimulate the androgen receptor and yet isn’t a steroid. It’s called a SARM, or Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator.
And it’s the future of sports doping.
The idea behind SARMs is to find an effective replacement for anabolic steroids, that are more user friendly. Most people who take testosterone either inject it or use a cream. Neither method is particularly convenient. Injections either require weekly trips to the doctor’s office, or learning how to do it yourself – and for most people self injecting conjures up images of a strung out Kurt Cobain. Creams require…well, rubbing cream on daily.
SAMS are not new idea, but rather a new approach to an old problem.
The first anabolic steroid to be synthesized was testosterone. It is both highly anabolic (muscle building) and androgenic (causing male sexual traits). Testosterone remains the gold standard of steroids, i.e. all steroids are measured on an anabolic:androgenic rating against testosterone (which itself is scored at a perfect 100:100). But it’s far from ideal. It converts to estrogen and Dihydrotestosterone. Estrogen causes water retention and the development of breast tissue (yes, in males). Dihydrotestosterone causes acne, prostate enlargement, and hair loss.
So although testosterone is the gold standard, there are problems with it. Science has been working for decades to sort them out.
Dianabol was the first real contender to solving the evils inherent with testosterone. It’s an oral steroid that converts to estrogen at half the rate of regular testosterone. However, to make a steroid orally effective, the basic four ring carbon structure of it needs to be modified – and this causes the new compound to stress the liver. You can’t stay on Dianabol (or any oral steroid) for very long, and ultimately this is why people tend to prefer injections (or cream) to oral steroids.
Throughout the ‘50s and ‘60s, thousands of different anabolic steroids were synthesized, all in an effort to find the Holy Grail – a steroid that is both highly anabolic and doesn’t cause side effects. No such steroid currently exists, although several come agonizingly close. There were steroids that didn’t convert to estrogen and steroids that didn’t convert to Dihydrotestosterone, yet the side effects remained.
Trenbolone converts to neither estrogen nor DHT, and has nightmarish side effects on some people: uncontrollable sweats, insomnia, and a cough that tastes like tin. Deca-Durabolin, considered one of the mildest steroids available can cause impotence. Out of those thousands of synthesized steroids, less than a few dozen are still sold on the legitimate market (Trenbolone is not one of them). Most of the research was filed away and forgotten about. Today, the few steroids still available are prescribed for hormone replacement therapy (in men) and for diseases with wasting conditions.
The Holy Grail was never found – until now.
SARMs, the theory goes, would give you the good without the bad: the cream without the milk, the Damon without the Affleck (or the Garner without the Affleck, if you prefer).
They’ve been on the underground radar for years, along with ubiquitous rumors about their presence in the United States. Don Caitlin, the world’s premier anti-doping scientist told me that the problem in keeping up with doping is that he’s seeing drugs in a lab rat one day, and athletes the next. There’s no lag time any more, he said, exasperated.
And there’s still no reliable test for Growth Hormone or Insulin-like Growth Factor, and more performance enhancing drugs are hitting tracks and gyms daily.
SARMs aren’t on the National Import Alert List, so United States Customs isn’t looking for them yet. They’re not even illegal. Some doctors-in-the-know have heard about them, and the black market is scrambling to secure a reliable pipeline. China, now that the Olympics are over, is the most likely choice. The bottle on my desk started its life somewhere in China, made its way through Texas (by way of Houston), and then ended up in New Jersey. I know this because my bottle included something called, in chemistry jargon, a C.O.A. – a certificate of analysis. The document assured me that it was indeed a SARM.
Oliver Caitlin (yes, Don’s son) couldn’t test it for me. There’s no existing standard in the USA – and they’d need one to test it against. They have no plans to develop such a test, but where did you get it, Oliver wanted to know. I know a guy who knows a guy…
Just in case you’re guessing: The guy I know isn’t former BALCO chemist Patrick Arnold, who is also well aware of SARMs. He has been in touch with my supplier numerous times, in a thus far fruitless attempt to procure some for himself. Mr. Arnold tells us that by bypassing the classic four-ring steroidal structure, SARMs may well be undetectable for a very long time.
“This is the type of thing they use in the development of SARMS…Why confine you[rself] to the four ring structure of steroids when that is too easy for the drug testers to figure out? And (in the case of legit medicine) too politically incorrrect.”
Of course, Patrick is correct. Using testosterone for androgen replacement therapy (which is a recognized medical condition) makes you a steroid user. Like me. But…this little blue bottle I have…well, that’s not a steroid at all. So I made the decision to use it.
I hoped that the amateur chemist who mixed it up didn’t use Chinese poly(ethylene) glycol. You see, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol are both toxic and deadly. The former is used in anti-freeze, and the latter is found in Chinese manufactured toothpaste that the FDA will not allow into America. Too toxic, they say.
Not minty enough, I say.
Theoretically SARM use should improve strength and muscle mass on par with straight testosterone. The side effects are supposed to minimal if not nonexistant, mere fractions of what you see from steroids – SARMs don’t convert to estrogen or DHT, and they don’t inhibit your own testosterone production as much as steroids do. I’m familiar with how testosterone feels, at least subjectively; for the past three years, I’ve been on supervised testosterone therapy.
And I’m not alone. Baby-Boomer aged clients have been flocking to doctors in record numbers for testosterone and other goodies, euphemistically labeled anti-aging medication. Aging, it should be noted, is not recognized as a medical condition – and the American Medical Association doesn’t recognize anti-aging as a legitimate specialty. Still, it’s a multi-million dollar niche. But there’s a problem…there’s always a problem…
Testosterone is naturally occurring…and therefore not patentable, or profitable for big pharmaceutical companies. Any company can produce and sell testosterone (and most steroids at this point, because the patents have expired). There’s just no money to be made in testosterone, and with the baby boom generation getting older and feeling worse every morning, this presents a huge problem.
SARMs are a win/win situation for the pharmaceutical companies developing them: they’re patentable, they tap into an already existing market, and they can charge an arm and a leg for them.
“They are simply a ‘politically correct’ alternative to anabolic steroids” said Patrick Arnold. “They don't have the steroid structure therefore they are not steroids, yet they are pharmacologically pretty much exactly the same as steroids.”
So I stopped taking my own prescription testosterone. I cleaned out for a couple of months, so that there was no lingering exogenous (outside) testosterone in my body and took my first SARM dose. I only received a month’s supply, and when its acrid chemical taste hit my mouth, I wished the month was over. On the underground market, many oral products are sold as liquids, even when their legitimate counterpart is a pill. Buying a large pill press now requires having your name put into a federal database – not a wise move for someone operating on the black market.
SARMs are almost 100% absorbed orally, but aren’t liver toxic like most oral steroids are. I took one milliliter each day, or 100 milligrams (this is slightly over 1mg/kg of bodyweight in my case). This is the dose most comparable to a replacement dose of testosterone, and enough to see results.
It worked exactly as advertised – testosterone without the usual testosterone-side effects. I didn’t gain much weight, but I found myself getting stronger beginning at week two and counting. I could have used ten times as much and still tested clean – easily. A professional athlete using this stuff would have a huge advantage over his clean competitors…if there remains such a thing.
The cost for my personal supply of this new drug was almost double what you could expect to pay for a similar amount of “regular” (and now passť) testosterone. This is not something that pharmaceutical companies have failed to notice, and if we see this drug hitting the legitimate American market (as it’s already on the black market, clearly), expect to see a price tag that reflects the convenience and research that went into research and development – and then some.
Undetectable, convenient, and potent – SARMs are what will replace anabolic steroids in the Olympics of tomorrow. And by tomorrow I mean yesterday, because they’re already here and available.
Besides, testosterone is so…2008.
- 09-06-2009, 02:28 PM
- 09-06-2009, 03:04 PM
09-06-2009, 06:01 PM
FORGET SARMS , IF YOU WANT TO READ NEW AND UP COMING LOOK AT FOLISTATIN/MYOSTATIN, THESES WILL BE THE NEW ****, ONCE THEY FIGURE IT OUT,LOL
09-06-2009, 06:08 PM
09-06-2009, 06:19 PM
09-06-2009, 06:30 PM
09-06-2009, 11:00 PM
09-07-2009, 12:44 AM
s4 cost about 85 bucks a month but you cant use a high dosage or it can give u vision issues but it is a way to take juice without having to inject or hurt your liver but the best use for it is in between cycles you know 6 week cycle 6 week sarms and on and on
09-07-2009, 01:07 AM
09-07-2009, 01:35 AM
for S4, up to 150mg ed and up to 5 weeks
Mostly answered PM's
Don't post on my profile, I don't read that stuff, PM me instead
<------ Hard to believe, but I wasn't on any anabolics in the avatar shot
09-07-2009, 10:21 AM
09-07-2009, 11:20 AM
09-07-2009, 11:36 AM
25 - 50mg was a low dose, 75 was a pretty standard dose, 100-150 were high doses, highest i saw was 200.
Mild yet noticable anabolic effects included: improved vascularity, muscle fullness, some leaning out, strength gains were very slight, but the recomp effect was good.
Side effects were pretty much limited to yellowed vision under low light conditions, that and taking much more time than usual for eyes to adjust to low light conditions... so it does mess with your vision at high doses. But if you stop taking it they go away pretty quickly.
Mostly answered PM's
Don't post on my profile, I don't read that stuff, PM me instead
<------ Hard to believe, but I wasn't on any anabolics in the avatar shot
09-07-2009, 11:37 AM
09-07-2009, 11:39 AM
09-07-2009, 11:48 AM
09-07-2009, 12:04 PM
09-07-2009, 12:22 PM
millions of dollars are pouring into research on these by pharmacuetical companies, and it's made first on the black market.
09-07-2009, 12:32 PM
pharmacuetical companies are pour millions into the myostain research, because of he complexity of the intra werkings involving all your organs, that are muscles as well. I know i feel a lil safer with them doing the research instead of sum black marketer, that only has profit in mind first. I for one wouldnt' like to take a product without proper trials.
09-07-2009, 12:41 PM
09-07-2009, 12:44 PM
09-07-2009, 01:39 PM
09-07-2009, 02:14 PM
But seriously, i do get your point, but honestly, as i have said before, we don't even know WTF is actually in the "Sarm S4" floating around, and if it really is what it claims to be.
Lastly 33% more drug, doesn't really guarantee infinitely more results. Do you know if the trials found any of these vision issues, that many people experience?
09-07-2009, 04:31 PM
GTx is using 1 and 3 mg of Ostarine (AKA S-4, AKA GTX-024) in ongoing clinical trials. I am also a bit concerned about reports of doses in the 100-150 mg range. I think there are two possibilities 1) The underground product contains S-4 and people are trying to replicate the "feel" and "performance" of AAS with S-4. In taking these high doses, peopel are liely negating the positive aspects of a SARM. 2) the underground product does not contain S-4 but instead contains something else that is known to cause visual disturbances and is dosed at 50 to 150 mg.
09-07-2009, 04:43 PM
09-07-2009, 04:49 PM
09-07-2009, 05:00 PM
09-07-2009, 05:04 PM
09-07-2009, 05:19 PM
Again, we don't even know wtf it is people are taking.
I guess your only point is "where did this magical dose come from" and i can tell you, it came from the people selling it, where they got it, probably out of their ass, or like i alluded to, and Seth said above, it is something else that needs xx a dose, to produce gains, and that is what they based it on.
09-07-2009, 05:45 PM
09-07-2009, 05:52 PM
Just 89 bucks really?!?!? For true S4, the first SARM that appears to actually work?!?!!!!! Mine was slightly more. I mean it could be water for all I know and I understand that just because it cost more doesn't make it better but really just $89!!! You would think thus stuff would be priced as liquid gold due to what it does. Just another thought I had.
09-24-2009, 01:51 PM
I have found an s4 supplier. . Really interested in this stuff. I havent even heard of the ***t that started with an M in the previous page. . But damnit, i thought i was on to something here. This s4 sounds like a load of bull.
09-24-2009, 01:56 PM
09-24-2009, 04:41 PM
09-24-2009, 08:31 PM
09-24-2009, 08:35 PM
09-25-2009, 06:47 AM
s4 worked at 25-50 mgs per day 5 on 2 off for me, hardness, strength very nice, not a size gainer, vision sides were present but not bad, slight yellow tinge and a little loss of night vision. I obviously did not have it tested, but there was definitely something in the product that worked. Also, the only real source for s4 is very trustworthy, has been around for a looooong time, if you are questioning his integrity he has many years of good refs out there. To give a reference point, took it with pct after pp's 1T (not 1T tren) and it was stronger than the 1T.
09-30-2009, 09:22 AM
09-30-2009, 09:30 AM
dont know if ok to give out specifics on price, but was good deal and well worth it IMO. I will say that it was about equal in price to what most would pay for a methyl and cycle supports and otc pct
Similar Forum Threads
- By 805bgtymer in forum AnabolicsReplies: 64Last Post: 05-06-2011, 01:20 PM
- By schwellington in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 10-05-2010, 05:05 AM
- By JT54 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 14Last Post: 02-06-2010, 07:22 PM
- By thahotboy in forum SupplementsReplies: 5Last Post: 08-15-2007, 10:22 PM