Safest/ Most studied SARMS

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. Thank you for the insight. I have only ran up to 25mg but tempted to run at higher doses....I'm curious how many people exceed 30mg or if most stay under? Personally I wouldn't use a suppressive substance during PCT but I am relatively new to any pro hormones and am on the very cautious side. Good to see even with a fairly aggressive approach you still had minimal/ no sides!


  2. Just ordered RAD 140 .. Will report back.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Davy25 View Post
    Noteworthy. And i absolutely agree with you SARM companies are spreading incredibly dangerous information.

    I have come across threads stating ED after sarm use *is this osta or SARMS in general?*. Also from what i understand libido is not a direct result from test, therefore i wonder what the catalyst for ED would be even while test levels are shooting up.
    In my experience the ED issue is related to a balance between androgen estrogen and prolactin. Estrogen is the big one in the thre. Too high or too low and ED can show-up. With a SARM you are suppressing natural testosterone In the male estrogen is mainly derived from testosterone so by tanking testoserone you are also tanking estrogen. So I would predict that in the middle of a SARM cycle or eeven earlier if using failry high doses ED/low libido could show up. The way around this could be to use testosterone but seems many on this board are a little squemish to use AAS. A blood test(s) would be helpful to dial in estradiol in normal range, usually middle of the reference is optimal, ~ 18-30 pg/mL.

  4. IDK about anyone else but I have gotten nothing but positives from my Sarms experiment over the last 15 months, and at 65 being able to look and feel the way I do is cool as hell. I won't put it all on sarms as I have worked my tail off but the sarms have facilitated that work effort and I have not experienced anything negative in any way. As far as long term side effects go at my age, not sure how much I care about that,however, I do follow a pct regime following my cycles and I'm not going to die a day before I'm supposed to.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Davy25 View Post
    I think its oretty clear Osta is the safest known sarm as it has undergone many trials/ still moving forward to be used to prevent muscle wasting in a certain type of cancer...

    That being said, what sarms come in second? I have done a bit of research and it appears LGD is the second most studied/ fewest sides. Does this seem to be the consensus, then perhaps RAD as the third safest/ most studied/ fewest sides?

    Thoughts?
    Agreed
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by CatSnake View Post
    I have seen enough threads here about weird ED issues after SARM cycles to think that they're not nearly as benign as people want to think.

    I've only seen a handful of studies on any of them.... I'd recommend looking closely at the subjects and if they are similar to a young, healthy male. in most cases that doesn't appear to be the case.
    Care to elaborate my friend? What ED issues pop up and on what compounds?

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Glycomann View Post
    In my experience the ED issue is related to a balance between androgen estrogen and prolactin. Estrogen is the big one in the thre. Too high or too low and ED can show-up. With a SARM you are suppressing natural testosterone In the male estrogen is mainly derived from testosterone so by tanking testoserone you are also tanking estrogen. So I would predict that in the middle of a SARM cycle or eeven earlier if using failry high doses ED/low libido could show up. The way around this could be to use testosterone but seems many on this board are a little squemish to use AAS. A blood test(s) would be helpful to dial in estradiol in normal range, usually middle of the reference is optimal, ~ 18-30 pg/mL.
    well, yeah, on cycle is common, but there are several threads here where guys have completed PCT, have good testosterone, prolactin and E2 levels and are still having ED.

    possibly a free test or DHT issue, but I'm not really sure....

    EDIT: I thnik most of those threads are in the PCT forum, @Dedwrong

  8. Quote Originally Posted by CatSnake View Post
    well, yeah, on cycle is common, but there are several threads here where guys have completed PCT, have good testosterone, prolactin and E2 levels and are still having ED.

    possibly a free test or DHT issue, but I'm not really sure....

    EDIT: I thnik most of those threads are in the PCT forum, @Dedwrong
    Could also be ugly girlfriend syndrome, smelly girlfriend syndrome or bitchy girlfriend syndrome. The libido has a pretty delicate balance.

  9. Thank you very much for the reply. commented before looking at previous comments that somewhat answered the question. So my bad on that.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Brya View Post
    None of them are as strong as AAS, or have sides like AAS. They still have the possibility of shutdown though, which i didn't experience even at 25mg of LGD 8 weeks. But s23/yk11 definitely shutsdown, basically a steroid. Everyone here on the forums lookout for you, so be grateful for that. A lot of it in my opinion is scare tactics though. Sarms were ****, i got nothing out of them. But i've hit well past my genetic limit.
    Maybe less scare tactics and more reason.

    For instance:

    1) The body has a negative feedback loop with androgen receptor activity, so trying to find a chemical that binds strongly to the androreceptors while not shutting the system down seems illogical.

    2) None of these chems have been approved for any sort of mass market use, so understanding long term effects is truly uncertain.

    3) the point is to grow as much as possible without ruining the body. SARMs don't belong to this class of goals exclusively.

    4) AAS is well-known, well-studied, well-documented and is easy to get and will more likely be real and properly dosed, something we can't say about SARMs yet.

    5) with a little research and a little cash, one can run test-only with profoundly better results, enjoy the proces more & be certain about and have less short and long term negtive health effects than SARMs. At the very least, one could be comfortable with the known trade-offs of a Test-only cycle.

    None of this was directed at you as a challenge but rather I just took an opportunity to share some different logic. I realize Test is illegal without a script but when it comes to choosing health over legality, if you can't sacrifice some legality for your health's sake then you shouldn't even consider PED's to begin with. It is unfortunate that our ignorant government has made these two things mutually exclusive (in the realm of PEDs), that is, staying legal vs. staying healthy.

  11. For instance:

    1) The body has a negative feedback loop with androgen receptor activity, so trying to find a chemical that binds strongly to the androreceptors while not shutting the system down seems illogical.

    I think the SARMs are the latest attempt to circumvent this conundrum. One of the problems is that the BBing community will use these things at 5 to 50 times the therapeutic dose and the marketers will still claim that they are not suppressive. For instance, Ostarine is used at 1-3 mg/d in clinical trials for cachexia merck.com/licensing/news-and-events/gtx-press-release.html. They are minimally suppressive at therapeutic dose but have very little in the way of BBing level anabolic effect at that clinical dose. Clinical indications for these things are sarcopenia due to aging, osteoporosis and cancer cachexia.

    2) None of these chems have been approved for any sort of mass market use, so understanding long term effects is truly uncertain.

    Ostarine and Ligandrol are in advanced rials at least phase 2 at the moment. Buy phase 3 there will be several years of data to reflect upon. At licensing these drugs will be subject to adverse events reporting as are all US licensed drugs. Other Western countries are the same.

    3) the point is to grow as much as possible without ruining the body. SARMs don't belong to this class of goals exclusively.

    Some users will have what they feel are more realistic goals. Some people will be interest in more mild effects that accent an already excellent training and diet regimen. Also, women may find some SARMs more appropriate for their goals than more androgenic compounds.


    4) AAS is well-known, well-studied, well-documented and is easy to get and will more likely be real and properly dosed, something we can't say about SARMs yet.

    AAS probably have a more dramatic side effect profile that the two most studies SARMs, Ostarine and Ligandrol, at least antidotally at this point.

    5) with a little research and a little cash, one can run test-only with profoundly better results, enjoy the process more & be certain about and have less short and long term negative health effects than SARMs. At the very least, one could be comfortable with the known trade-offs of a Test-only cycle.

    Many men on TRT must use an estrogen blocker and other ancillaries even at 200 mg/w. Also many older TRT patients require periodic phlebotomy to control red cell values. A typical 500 mg/w BBing type test cycle will almost without exception result in high estrogen and DHT levels. From there it depends on individual sensitivities as far as side effects but over time such levels can lead to polycythemia, prostate hyperplasia, water retention, high blood pressure, etc.

    SARMs are the latest attempt to produce a product that can address some of the same clinical indications as AAS without the same level of the above side effects. Whether they are successful or not, we will have to wait and see. My prediction is that some will be licensed in Western nations with the US not being among the first. There is money to be made and there have been vert few adverse events in clinical trials thus far. Whether or not they are useful for BBing purposes, I would say yes but the amounts needed would be 5-25 times as much as therapeutic dose much like that seen with AAS.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by CatSnake View Post
    I posted this on another thread.... one of my issues with GW is the marketing by the companies selling it is not accurate on the dosing when comparing rats and humans:

    "This article seems to explain this a little more clearly (to me, at least):

    http://www.ergo-log.com/calculatethehumandosage.html

    ^So if this is correct, then the SARMs/GW companies clearly don't understand what they're talking about, and are dispensing some rather unsafe information.

    i.e. : https://www.evolutionary.org/gw-501516-cardarine-cancer

    ^If my math is correct (which it might not be), the comparable dose is not 900 mg, but 145 mg for the amount that is likely to cause cancer..... "
    Maybe, haven't done the math myself. Bit still 2 years.

  13. Dude, I know the guy who put together phase I & 2 clinical trials of the Ostarine. He worked down the street from my apartment years ago before GTx dropped the effort.

    Point is, I'm aware of the studies. Clinical trials don't hold a candle to 30+ years of both therapeutic & anecdotal use of drugs.

    The fact that the endogenous suppression is linear with the dose used makes SARMs identical to normal steroids in that regard. I actually don't believe GTx cares about suppression. I believe they were after something that didn't cause long term health issues related to kidney and heart health becauae the focus group was either 1) older men and women or 2) younger women with wasting diseases. Obviously they were trying to find anabolic compounds that wouldn't masculinize or cause accelerated heart disease or kidney disease.

    Anyways, Ostarine does something for sure, but IMO the anabolic boost does not justify both the known risks and the unknown risks.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    Dude, I know the guy who put together phase I & 2 clinical trials of the Ostarine. He worked down the street from my apartment years ago before GTx dropped the effort.

    Point is, I'm aware of the studies. Clinical trials don't hold a candle to 30+ years of both therapeutic & anecdotal use of drugs.

    The fact that the endogenous suppression is linear with the dose used makes SARMs identical to normal steroids in that regard. I actually don't believe GTx cares about suppression. I believe they were after something that didn't cause long term health issues related to kidney and heart health becauae the focus group was either 1) older men and women or 2) younger women with wasting diseases. Obviously they were trying to find anabolic compounds that wouldn't masculinize or cause accelerated heart disease or kidney disease.

    Anyways, Ostarine does something for sure, but IMO the anabolic boost does not justify both the known risks and the unknown risks.
    Good input. Honestly i feel now id rather just go to test E.. it seems like the safest option.. just wish there was a way to take it orally...
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Safest Sarms/Andros/PH on hairline.
    By AdelV in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-17-2017, 10:16 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-13-2017, 07:56 PM
  3. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 09-11-2016, 12:43 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-07-2007, 11:51 PM
  5. Study: Meth use rare in most of the U.S.
    By yeahright in forum Politics
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 06-25-2006, 08:13 PM
Log in
Log in