Unanswered SARMS require TEST base

redbull622

New member
Awards
0
so this is my understanding - SARM like osterine fills receptors up. More osterine you take or longer you take it more of receptors get filled up. By doing so that basically tells your body hey we don't need to make as much Test. So assuming that is correct...

The problem I see is you have receptors filled but actual Test in body is really low. So that would cause usual problems associated with low Test

VS

AAS your receptors are filled, but you have actual TEST (a ton of it) in the body.

So assuming that's all true. What good are SARMS without a Test base? Or TRT/HRT.
 
WesleyInman

WesleyInman

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Sarms work just fine minus a test base but they are mild in general.

Something like LGD, Osta or S23 will do a nice job at high dose and with few sides in general but they are suppressive so you will need to do PCT, Aka Clomid, etc.

Running SARMS with HRT or on cycle is beneficial because sarms are not only good for their "anabolic" effects. Take for instance a combo of RAD140 and SR90009> Will give you MEGA endurance like nothing anabolic could and also will improve fat burning, etc.

So it truly depends what specific sarms you are asking about. There are too many with too variable a profile to count in the same sentence...
 
BarryScott

BarryScott

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
I think it's most likely an individual thing. When I was looking into trying sarms I bought into the test base idea but then just decided to try it without one anyway, and turns out had no perceivable effects of low test whatsoever.
 
Matthersby

Matthersby

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
so this is my understanding - SARM like osterine fills receptors up. More osterine you take or longer you take it more of receptors get filled up. By doing so that basically tells your body hey we don't need to make as much Test. So assuming that is correct...

The problem I see is you have receptors filled but actual Test in body is really low. So that would cause usual problems associated with low Test

VS

AAS your receptors are filled, but you have actual TEST (a ton of it) in the body.

So assuming that's all true. What good are SARMS without a Test base? Or TRT/HRT.
Because SARMs are disappointing.
I think they are GREAT for those new to PEDs for LESS side effects and suppression.
But unfortunately from what we’ve learned there is certainly isn’t NO sides or suppression.
The worst liver enzymes I’ve seen on here were from LGD.
And I’ve seen countless threads where guys had a rough post cycle with pretty lousy labs to prove it on stuff as mild as osta.
I don’t hate sarms, in fact, if they did what we initially were hoping they’d do, they’d have been revolutionary and an amazing alternative to steroids. But with what we’ve seen:
Osta: why not just use Var
LGD: why not just use Dbol

Not all sarms are the same, but if you’re talking about some of the common ones like these two, I haven’t seen enough to show me they would be any better or safer than the oral aas I provided above.

S4, MK677(not sarm anyways) and a lot of the other ones seem pretty cool, I would just keep looking into logs and really ask yourself why not the aas counterparts that we have 50 years of science knowledge and user accounts on.
 

suavmcgauv

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
Sarms are steroids. The goal of sarms development is to find androgens that affect certain tissues over others and thus avoid prosrate hyperplasia etc, while still getting the benefit of an androgen. Sr9009 is not a sarm, neither is mk677 or GW. Those three confuse the issue and lead people to believe sarms are not suppressive. Some people who do not suppress as easily may find sarms useful as a stand alone, that is not me.
 
thecave

thecave

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
so this is my understanding - SARM like osterine fills receptors up. More osterine you take or longer you take it more of receptors get filled up. By doing so that basically tells your body hey we don't need to make as much Test. So assuming that is correct...

The problem I see is you have receptors filled but actual Test in body is really low. So that would cause usual problems associated with low Test

VS

AAS your receptors are filled, but you have actual TEST (a ton of it) in the body.

So assuming that's all true. What good are SARMS without a Test base? Or TRT/HRT.
Your logic makes sense my brother however much as some of the other guys have mentioned it:
- Depends which sarm you are referring to
- Some like LGD and OSTA don't seem to need a test base / a test base dosen't seem to be very effective when taken in conjunction.

SARMS can be a little confusing and hard to explain until you have run them a few times and got the feel for them, some of the usual hormonal logic does not seem to apply, for example Osta really seems to saturate all receptors so well that any test base never really gets a chance to bind to any receptors and do its work - LGD surpasses natural test while you are on it and if you get a blood test your testosterone comes back low however you feel like you are on a very high dose of test (if its legit) and energy libido and aggression are not really compromised at all.

That said I weirdly did find that a natural test booster taken with any anabolic SARM (Osta, LGD, S4, S23) seemed more effective at maintaining normal libido then a test base itself.

The one SARM (again another sarm thats not really a sarm) that worked well with other anabolic and test bases was YK-11, this dosent seem to work the same as Osta and LGD and therefore worked better when I stacked it with a test base or another SARM.

They are a different beast and you can definitely run Osta on its own with nothing else which is where it shines IMO - it simply blocks most other things out anyway, this is also why its great to keep gains after a big cycle, it really seem to lock down the receptors while you can use other compounds to PCT and get your balls fired up again before tapering off the Osta.

Just some of my thoughts from using these compounds - hope its useful, its all anecdotal mixed in with what we have been told about these SARMS but I will say its also factoring in a lot of other peoples reports on their cycles that I get too working in a store.
 
jim2509

jim2509

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
This is one of the best discussions I've seen on here about the pro's and cons of Sarms. I agree about LGD above being hardly side free and Timberx's bloods after his OL UK Lgd were quite frankly shocking to say the least...worse than any oral cycle I've ever done. Osta seems to be the best bet for first timers or those new to PED'S. I found it rather good...mood was great and it seemed to have a good fat loss/hardening effect and it actually raised my libido as well. It didnt appear to have messed with my lipids either.

Running it alongside say Cardarine could be a good recomp stack in my opinion. If I had the choice over likes of Lgd vs Dbol or PH's like DMZ, HDROL Epi etc I'd go with the PH's.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Cycle Logs 20
Anabolics 19
NYCFITOVER40 PES 0
Anabolics 1
AdelV Anabolics 21

Similar threads


Top