Safest/ Most studied SARMS

Davy25

Davy25

Active member
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?
 
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.
 
Brya said:
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.
Click to expand...

Didn't dose long enough or large enough ;)
 
Throw them in the same basket as AAS. They will shut you down all the same when dosed for maximum gains and sides are a plenty. There's enough logs out there to make up your own mind. The only advantage they offer is in terms of legality.
 
As Sarms have shown to shut you down, a proper cycle support product and liver support is good to have. CEL CYCLE ASSIST and CEL TUDCA are used by many respected members here on AM.
 
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.
 
a4urza said:
Didn't dose long enough or large enough ;)
Click to expand...

I dosed like that on purpose to see if there was any difference in 10mg ED vs 25 mg ED only thing i got on both was a little temp erectile dysfunction. But with AAS or Sarms you have to be ready to go limp towards the end of the cycle. But PCT right i came back to normal, everything was fine. I didn't get shutdown on 25mg which doesn't make sense. I wonder if you pass a threshold where the body just can't use anymore. Not sure, but whatever.
 
Brya said:
I dosed like that on purpose to see if there was any difference in 10mg ED vs 25 mg ED only thing i got on both was a little temp erectile dysfunction. But with AAS or Sarms you have to be ready to go limp towards the end of the cycle. But PCT right i came back to normal, everything was fine. I didn't get shutdown on 25mg which doesn't make sense. I wonder if you pass a threshold where the body just can't use anymore. Not sure, but whatever.
Click to expand...

you took 25 mg/day of LGD for 8 weeks?

that's pretty suppressive at 1 mg/day for 3 weeks....

Invalid Link Removed
 
Yeah, when i had bloods done for both 10mg and 25mg they were actually pretty identical except for LH levels. LH was down a bit more on 25mg by about .9 . But my test was suppressed by about 65% which is quite a bit, and 10mg only about 50% Which i was wondering if there's like a limit, cause you'd think i would have been shutdown at 25mg but nope only about a 15% extra decrease.
 
Arkm2 said:
I would say Ostarine as the safest one, then LGD. The other sarms are not studies at all.
Click to expand...

Agreed... looking for some more info and perhaps sources for studies. I subconsciously recall osta and lgd being the most safe but cant dig up the info i found.

Nobody is debating they are suppressive, this is a well known fact. I dont think of this as a major side effect, i am moreso concerned about GW causing cancerous tumors and S4 causing eye problems. I have taken osta and noticed no problems *shutdown aside* and the shutdown has given minimal noticeable side *only lowered libido*.

Anyone have any studies or sources for long term sides or lack thereof?
 
Davy25 said:
Agreed... looking for some more info and perhaps sources for studies. I subconsciously recall osta and lgd being the most safe but cant dig up the info i found.

Nobody is debating they are suppressive, this is a well known fact. I dont think of this as a major side effect, i am moreso concerned about GW causing cancerous tumors and S4 causing eye problems. I have taken osta and noticed no problems *shutdown aside* and the shutdown has given minimal noticeable side *only lowered libido*.

Anyone have any studies or sources for long term sides or lack thereof?
Click to expand...

GW doesn’t cause cancer and S4 causes temporary night blindness that stops when the S4 is discontinued. There are no long term studies on sarms. None are even out of clinical trials yet and most sarms never even make it that far into animal trials.
 
This is all true, to an extent. Osta has made it past Phase II and scheduled for phase III for cachexia cancer. Ncbi gives a good analysis of Osta, which lead me to believe it is the safest. The GW debate of dosage versus metabolic rate is exactly that "up for debate". Personally anything that has been proven to cause cancer at any extent i would try to stay away from.
 
Google LGD 4033 clinical trials to find the ncbi study.

limited adverse effects shown and in a much more closely related study group than osta. LGD studied healthy men aged 21-50 whereas osta was studied men 40-65 who had cancer. Both had very positive results with limited adverse effects, but again as mentioned previously, limited to no long term studies are available.
 
as you have stated, there is nothing known about the long term side effects which in all seriousness can be quite scary
 
Brya said:
Yeah, when i had bloods done for both 10mg and 25mg they were actually pretty identical except for LH levels. LH was down a bit more on 25mg by about .9 . But my test was suppressed by about 65% which is quite a bit, and 10mg only about 50% Which i was wondering if there's like a limit, cause you'd think i would have been shutdown at 25mg but nope only about a 15% extra decrease.
Click to expand...

Interesting. cool data to have....
 
Davy25 said:
This is all true, to an extent. Osta has made it past Phase II and scheduled for phase III for cachexia cancer. Ncbi gives a good analysis of Osta, which lead me to believe it is the safest. The GW debate of dosage versus metabolic rate is exactly that "up for debate". Personally anything that has been proven to cause cancer at any extent i would try to stay away from.
Click to expand...

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):

Invalid Link Removed

^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. : Invalid Link Removed

^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..... "
 
Davy25 said:
Agreed... looking for some more info and perhaps sources for studies. I subconsciously recall osta and lgd being the most safe but cant dig up the info i found.

Nobody is debating they are suppressive, this is a well known fact. I dont think of this as a major side effect, i am moreso concerned about GW causing cancerous tumors and S4 causing eye problems. I have taken osta and noticed no problems *shutdown aside* and the shutdown has given minimal noticeable side *only lowered libido*.

Anyone have any studies or sources for long term sides or lack thereof?
Click to expand...

one of the suppression issues we are seeing on threads here, is guys will have good bloodwork post cycle, yet are having serious ED issues. I'm not sure the reason, but there are TONS of guys complaining about this on AM....

Invalid Link Removed
 
CatSnake said:
one of the suppression issues we are seeing on threads here, is guys will have good bloodwork post cycle, yet are having serious ED issues. I'm not sure the reason, but there are TONS of guys complaining about this on AM....
Click to expand...

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.
 
A little cialis will go a long way in pct! Was something I always included into my pct but now use daily while doing blast and cruise, never an issue with swinging the wood. Cialis also helps with blood pressure and helps protect the prostate. Not saying this is the answer to everyone’s problems mentioned in that thread but the right ancillaries make all the difference on cycle and pct.
 
Thank you! Ostarine really gives me confidence taking *while i am skeptical of the pharma industry as a whole, pharma in general is poison*. I am reluctant to put any other SARM in my body but given the in depth studies that have occured with Osta, the adverse effects seem marginal at this point.

In the thread referenced they said osta was discontinued for any other clinical trials/ treatments and has "limited outlook for pharmacueticl treatments", but on GTx's page they are still pursuing multiple uses for enbosarm and you can follow the clinical trials on "clinical trials dot gov" or something, the link is on GTx website. Not to sound like dylan gemelli but that is pretty awesome.
 
Well this is coming from a different perspective. About a year ago I did a normal AAS cycle of 500-700 mg/w and came off. I decided to use some SARMs in conjunction with my normal PCT of Clomid and hCG. I added in 20-40 mg Ostarine. It turned into mroe of an experiment over the 8 weeks. I added in Ligandrol for a few weeks during. Then ended with a taper of the Ostarine and bumping the Clomid back up to 50 mg/d. I am hypo from years if use and age but my testes came back to normal size as usual using the clomid even though Ostarine was present. Over the course I noted that OStarine had recomp effect at 20-40 mg/d with more dramatic effects at the higher end. When I added 20 mg/d Ligandrol I put mass back on. I was using a total of 60 mg/d of SARMs. At that level they worked similar to a mild steroid cycle. 10 weeks later my bloodwork was fine but test is still ~300 ng/dL as is normal for me off all TRT.

So the conclusion for me is Ostarine is useful as a recomp compound and Ok for maintaining some mass gained during AAS use. Ligandrol as an addition turns the SARM stack into more of a light anabolic cycle. What I don't know is what happened to my bloodwork during but afterward 10 weeks later all was fine. I never had any side effects at all. At the very end I was only using 20 mg Ostarine and felt a little flat so there is probably a level at which effects take hold. AS a long time user of PEDs my break-through amoiunt is probably a little higher than someone with younger fresher or virgin system. For me I would say to use again 40 mg/d Ostarine would be effective.
 
Brya said:
I dosed like that on purpose to see if there was any difference in 10mg ED vs 25 mg ED only thing i got on both was a little temp erectile dysfunction. But with AAS or Sarms you have to be ready to go limp towards the end of the cycle. But PCT right i came back to normal, everything was fine. I didn't get shutdown on 25mg which doesn't make sense. I wonder if you pass a threshold where the body just can't use anymore. Not sure, but whatever.
Click to expand...

Lol if you didn't gain from LGD you definitely didn't dose high enough or had some bunk product
 
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!
 
Davy25 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Davy25 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
CatSnake said:
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.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate my friend? What ED issues pop up and on what compounds?
 
Glycomann said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
CatSnake said:
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
Click to expand...

Could also be ugly girlfriend syndrome, smelly girlfriend syndrome or bitchy girlfriend syndrome. The libido has a pretty delicate balance.
 
Thank you very much for the reply. commented before looking at previous comments that somewhat answered the question. So my bad on that.
 
Brya said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
CatSnake said:
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):

Invalid Link Removed

^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. : Invalid Link Removed

^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..... "
Click to expand...
Maybe, haven't done the math myself. Bit still 2 years.
 
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.
 
fueledpassion said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Davy25 said:
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...
Click to expand...
Try testosterone gel I used them and they were good rub the gel into your arms and skin absorbs it and the liquid pit drops under your tongue all good stuff if you can get hold of it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top