Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

SARM and heart

AK1

AK1

New member
Anybody have access to any research that discusses impact of common sarms (osta lgd and Rad) and heart stress/growth.

The theory says they are 'selective' but that doesn't answer a whole lot as selective is vague...
 
I can't recall anything being mentioned in the studies. Generally speaking, the most common CVS impact will be BP and lipids. PVCs, cardiac hypertrophy, and the like will be relatively rarer; I don't think there will be any adverse cardiac activity that is going to be unique to SARMs.
 
Thanks for the reply. What are you basing that on though? Is there anything from the developers anywhere that covers this issue in comparison to AAS?
 
I'm not aware of anything in the literature that demonstrates SARMs to have less/more activity in cardiac tissue compared to AAS. I'm basing my comments on user feedback; hardly rigorous, but in some ways more helpful.

Obviously, SARMs are intended to be dosed at much lower quantities therapeutically than what we BBers dose.
 
Yes this is the issue - trials look at blood work and short term differences and user feedback does the same. To me, avoiding estrogenic sides, baldness and debatably being 'not quite as' suppressive are irrelevant benefits if you're just as likely to land yourself a heart attack with long term use... Some people aren't concerned about that so the advantages for them might make a sarm worthwhile. I'm really looking for something that ditches the risk of serious long term consequences, even if the superficial risks such as baldness and gyno are still there.... Those are an acceptable trade off - destroying organs isn't.
 
Sarms are selective to bone and muscle tissue. The heart is a muscle therefore....
 
Also, nobody knows for a fact what the long term impact of sarms are especially at the doses that we commonly use. This is a huge grey area that we can only give a logical or educated guess to. You will not find a relevant study that shows anything close to this information.
 
yates84 said:
Sarms are selective to bone and muscle tissue. The heart is a muscle therefore....
Click to expand...

But there's big difference between skeletal muscle, smooth muscle and striated muscle (cardiac muscle). I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but I thought part of the appeal of SARMs, or ostarine at least was specifically targeting bone and skeletal muscle, so no direct effect on cardiac tissue. Too what degree this is true at the high does people use is up for debate and no studies to bear it out. And as general rule, any anabolic that increases your work capacity to supraphysiological levels is going to put undue stress on your heart and make your body adapt and cause some degree of ventricular wall hypertrophy if you use enough of it for long enough.
 
At this stage I'm not even necessarily expecting there to be an extensive amount of research about impact on the body from long term use - as there has not really been enough time to draw big conclusions at this stage, but I think there should have been attempts* made by the developers to discuss the concern as a steroid alternative (even at 'low' dosing) - somebody with enough bio chemistry knowledge who creates this concept must have a reasonable understanding of how it actually* works when the concept is an alternative to a side-heavy drug. There ought to be a starting point for this kind of question other than presumption or conjecture.... The term 'selective' again is so vague: selective to specifically what receptors of which types of tissue and to what affinity level. I expect to see some hard academic literature somewhere out there on how specifically each of these sarms work on a technical level - not just google lists of generic base-science level reviews from Roidsandstuff.com that tell us nothing other than the 'theory' of sarms. You can find a relative amount of the above on the likes of MK, but everything else seems to lack detail out there
 
Generally speaking SARMs don't affect BP or organ growth

I've read a lot about those compound in the recent months and it seriously seems to be the safest option before a real AAS

SARMs don't produce amazing results, but based on my experience with Osta I'd say that the gains are clean, keepable, pump is great and you feel great throughout the cycle, but the gains are unimpressive compared to Epistane, Tren or SD.

I think SARMs are the best option for a bridge between cycles or just to give you a little kick start before your PH kicks in.

(not for PCT even though we have very little information about SARMs and how they trully affect recovery)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top