I'm just coming off 8 weeks of LGD-4033 myself, and here are my thoughts. First of all, in your Google searches completely ignore the Reddit crowd recommending 5mg/day and saying anything more is a waste. This may be the case for absolute noobs with 6 months of training experience, but since you've done previous AAS cycles your receptors are crusty and jaded and telling newer anabolics to get off their lawn, and 5mg will do nothing for them. I started at 5mg, saw absolutely nothing by the end of week 3 save for a little CNS stimulation and some sex drive increase, and bumped it up to 10mg/day for weeks 4 through 8.
And that brings me to results on 10mg... I have to say that this is just my opinion and your own experience may vary, but I think with what's out there naturally now, LGD-4033 may just be a waste of time. When I'd started my LGD cycle I'd just finished crushing 3 x 8-week cycles in a row of natural anabolics. Cycle 1 was Mediator Phosphatidic Acid and Peak ATP (and despite all the jokes about Muscletech this turned out to work pretty damn well). Cycle 2 was Follidrone 2.0 and Mediator, and Cycle 3 was EP1LOGUE, Mediator, and X-Gels. Combined with hard training and solid eating, I found my strength and scale weight just going up and up, and even pounding the cals and protein I still stayed fairly hard in terms of body comp. It was a wild ride, and I thought it would get even better when I "moved up" to SARMS. BUT really, I am unimpressed. Over 8 weeks at 10mg my strength went up a rep or two here, 2.5lbs or 5lbs there, and my muscles felt a little fuller between sessions. But I never saw major changes in my body comp and performance that I did in the previous 3 cycles of natural anabolics. (Note that the brand I'm using has a really good reputation here in Canuckistan, and I definitely did feel some hormonal effects, so I'm not doubting the authenticity of the compound I used at all either).
I'm not saying that SARMs are crap, because people are definitely seeing positive effects with them. What I'm saying is that if you have previous experience with AAS and popped your receptors' cherry, your training is in check and already allows for growth stimulation and recovery, and you've already made great strides towards your genetic limit through proper training and supplementation with *effective* natural anabolics, you'll probably see mediocre results with safe dosages of SARMs (and what's a safe dosage with them anyway? We're all guessing right now).
Besides, you yourself admit that you've gotten out of shape and are just getting back on the horse. Just going to the gym with consistency and effort alone, and watching your nutrition will give you "steroid-like gains" for the first couple months at this point. There's absolutely no need to go anywhere near PEDs with unknown long-term effects right now. If you absolutely must take something because you feel that's not enough, try to exhaust all natural options before turning to drugs again. Look into the VECTOR logs, or EP1LOGUE or Follidrone 2.0. I'm actually stunned that no one else here is discouraging you from hopping on drugs out of the gate to change your physique, like drug-assisted training is the natural order of things. IMHO fakkking with your health should be the absolute last resort in your physique enhancement journey, after you've tried everything else.
You said you made better gains your first 3 cycles using "natural" supps than you did your 4th cycle using low-dose LGD.
I have a few thoughts on that. First and foremost, have you considered the fact that as you gain muscle, making continued gains becomes harder and harder? Even with steroids, the more cycles you run, the lower your net muscle gains will be, assuming all other variables are equal. So, it is not surprising that after 6 months of continuous gains that your body started to put on the breaks.
two, 5 mg of LGD is nothing. Does anyone run 5 mg of an oral steroid (outside of a small few extremely potent drugs)? No. SO, if 5 mg of Dianabol or Anadrol isn't going to do crap, why on Earth would anyone expect 5 mg of LGD to provide good gains. Now, it may add a handful of pounds of muscle in someone who has never used any androgen receptor agonists (steroids, SARMs) before, but it sure as hell won't do much in someone who has previously used those drugs or who has reached the upper-limit of their natural genetic potential.
The bottom line here is that if someone is going to asses the potency of SARMs as a whole, they better be using the drugs in their optimal dosing range...not pitiful doses that don't come anywhere close to taking advantage of their full growth promoting potential. Using the doses administered in clinical trials is nonsense! No one applies clinical doses to their AAS cycles, so why should we do so with SARMs? Because a researcher decided to use those doses? Just because a certain dosing range may have been used in clinical trials, it does not mean it is ideal for bodybuilding purposes. In fact, history shows that in most cases involving AAS, the doses used in clinical trials are far, FAR lower than what bodybuilders use to promote muscle growth. Trial and error has proven that using clinical doses of AAS doesn't come anywhere close to providing maximum gains...and with SARMs being weaker, in general, than our more potent AAS, why should we think that we can get away with even smaller dosages of SARMs?
For maximum gains with safety in mind, most SARMs should be used in the 30-50 mg/day range...just like steroids. At 30-50 mg/day, LGD is a completely different animal than it is at 5 mg/day...or even 10 mg/day. Just like 5-10 mg of Dianabol provides mediocre results, but 30-50 mg/day produces very good results, we see the same exact thing with SARMs. Both classes of drugs are androgen receptor agonists...and work through the exact same pathways, so it is not illogical to conclude that ideal dosing ranges may be similar. In this case, they most certainly are.
Even at 20 mg/day, LGD will produce very good results for most non-steroid users...and when combined with another 20 mg/day of either S23, RAD-140, or YK-11, results will typically be excellent and rival moderate steroid cycles.
The bottom line is that SARMs are
BY FAR the most powerful non-steroidal muscle builders on the market today. No class of "natural" anabolics can touch them...not even close, but before someone denies this is the case they must be willing to evaluate them in their optimal dosing ranges...not teeny-tiny doses that don't come anywhere close to providing maximum results.
The problem here is that many companies simply charge too much money for many young guys to be able to afford a single SARM at 20 mg/day, let alone two SARMs at 20 mg/day. Keep in mind I said "most", not ALL. Some companies have set their prices low enough so that the user can use two SARMs at 20 mg/day for less than money than many companies charge to run just one SARM at 20 mg/day.
With that said, I would consider 20 mg/day the "starting" point for anyone who wishes to really see what these compounds can do...and if they have the funds, add in a 2nd one at the same dose.
SARMs are great compounds when used within their optimal dosing ranges and the proper compounds are selected for the individual's goals. After all, they are basically steroids in terms of function, working to promote growth via AR activation and differing only in their molecular backbone.
