New research paper on Lgd 4033/MK677 - shows negative outcomes on Bone Mineral Density, Cholesterol etc.

jim2509

jim2509

Well-known member
Well these results surprised me considering the dosages and 5 week cycle length. Looks like Lgd 4033/Mk677 combo might be worth avoiding. The post cycle issue left over and the on cycle effects leave me questioning whether Lgd is arguably worse than taking a Prohormone like Halodrol as liver was still effected according to the research. The lipid hit raised my eyebrows along with the poor performance enhancement and bone mineral density reduction.

Feel free to share opinions on this:

Invalid Link Removed
 
The body fat and general weight increases tell me he was bulking and it doesn’t say what his diet was. So… my guess is the guy was pounding calories in to add mass and surprise, eating a lot of calories for a dirty bulk also negatively affects blood work. In addition to slight negative impacts of these orals on lipids.
 
SSJ4GOD said:
The body fat and general weight increases tell me he was bulking and it doesn’t say what his diet was. So… my guess is the guy was pounding calories in to add mass and surprise, eating a lot of calories for a dirty bulk also negatively affects blood work. In addition to slight negative impacts of these orals on lipids.
Click to expand...

Good point. He could of been smashing the calories for all we know and not sure if any cycle support was ongoing or what their general fitness was like. Guess the jury is still out there regarding long term safety but thought it was an Interesting study none the less.
 
Gonna be variabls from person to person. 20-40mg a day lgd had no significint impact on my cholesterol, but that doesn't mean it won't on yours. If we treat these things like steroids, and that's how we should treat them, and use with caution for limited periods of time and monitor our health we can have our own real studies that apply to ourselves and we can remove the guesswork
 
Also, sarms do not convert to estrogen, so if in the study they were not supplementing estrogen then the ppl likely had low estrogen after a while and low estrogen is linked to Osteoporosis. So being on testosterone or something like that may completely counter that. I'm not certain, but again, variables
 
From a scientific perspective it’s garbage. N=1 study with multiple compounds and missing the pre data like LH/FSH. It’s a single dart thrown set of data that’s it.

No conclusions can be drawn, it’s just “data suggests that when Joe Nobody has these results when he agreed to be a lab rat for his research friends”
 
Rad83 said:
Would have liked to see the study with just LGD …and a separate MK one.
Click to expand...

There's a few things I don't understand.

The study says that LG +MK disadvantages bone. But other research on LD and MK independently and more for LDG proves that they act positively on the density. Plus for LGD even if it remains to be proven on MK but it will still be good.

Then why would both be counterproductive?

It's a strange study.


So here, another stud

Invalid Link Removed


Invalid Link Removed


And that

Invalid Link Removed
 
Oliver Kween said:
There's a few things I don't understand.

The study says that LG +MK disadvantages bone. But other research on LD and MK independently and more for LDG proves that they act positively on the density. Plus for LGD even if it remains to be proven on MK but it will still be good.

Then why would both be counterproductive?

It's a strange study.
Click to expand...
That was the biggest thing for me, both of these things are known to improve bone density and or bone formation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top