Guest viewing is limited

SARMs

UncleSarm said:
How long do you recommend running it and at what doses?
Click to expand...

As you quoted the text and regarding the studies you can use MK-677 over a very long time period. The MK-677 itself is working right away from the first intake but you will notice the real benefit after couple of weeks (like the most AAS and GH-types).
If you aim for anti-aging, start as low as possible (e.g. 5mg/ed) and use it as long as possible. Also work with an anti-somatostatine. 5mg/ed are potent, 10mg/ed even more. But the aim should be to stay as low as possible. If you are feeling great then there is no need to increase the dosage (from an financial and health point of view).
But I suggest that the majority in this forum are aiming for more muscle mass ;) The clientel above 30 years will have a much higher benefit ratio comparing with younger guys (ergo: the older the "better").
I personally use 25mg/ed for approx. 14 weeks. It is not a long time, indeed. But it works quite nice.

For the future, I will reduce this dosage to 12.5mg/ed and use it longer, 18 weeks for example. Three to six months is a good indicator, as low as possible. Another possibility could be: run MK-677 10mg/ed for six weeks (to build up a good niveau until you have the real benefits regarding muscle building) and then increasing dosage to 25mg/ed.

It's up to you, how you are constructing your own scheme. Just keep in mind that:
- it needs couple of weeks, until you have the real benefits (despite it affects the GH-production in your body instant!)
- higher dosage means higher GH/IGF-1 values but also more side effects (e.g. prolactine)
- the effectiveness will change.

You will see the following graph and hopefully you will understand what I mean. The questionmark means, that this graph should not be taken too serious because there is not much data available yet. But at the moment the case is, that the curve of MK-677 niveau in the human body looks like this. With an anti-somatostatine like Huperzine-A you are able to put off the active subtance in the body.

Invalid Link Removed

Are you going to use only the "peak-period" or a longer time frame? That's up to you. But in every case you will have much higher values than natural.
 
sanmarino said:
Invalid Link Removed

Are you going to use only the "peak-period" or a longer time frame? That's up to you. But in every case you will have much higher values than natural.
Click to expand...

Damn that graph seems homemade :D !
Which study is it from ?
 
Danes said:
Damn that graph seems homemade :D !
Which study is it from ?
Click to expand...
It is, indeed haha
Puuh, I have to search them again :) But in general all the made studies regarding MK-677 show tendencies to the graph above (like every substance). If I'm right, the GH output in the persons (I think, they had a GH deficit) increased up to +800% in the first weeks and decreased very fast. Another study showed that after 24 months intake the GH/IGF-1 levels increased +60-70%.

By the way: the insuline sensitivity disappeared after six months. Therefore this factor could also have a negative effect in the first couple of weeks.
 
sanmarino said:
It is, indeed haha
Puuh, I have to search them again :) But in general all the made studies regarding MK-677 show tendencies to the graph above (like every substance). If I'm right, the GH output in the persons (I think, they had a GH deficit) increased up to +800% in the first weeks and decreased very fast. Another study showed that after 24 months intake the GH/IGF-1 levels increased +60-70%.

By the way: the insuline sensitivity disappeared after six months. Therefore this factor could also have a negative effect in the first couple of weeks.
Click to expand...
MK677 is a good stuff.
It seems like Anamorelin will be approved soon :)
 
You mentioned you got sleepy shortly after taking your GW; try taking it along with a meal with carbs in it. I don't remember the exact reason why, but apparently GW has the ability to make you feel hypoglycemic. I've felt it myself and immediately found something to eat, and started feeling better not long after that.
I have been on 10mg MK-677 almost nonstop (1 exception in December where I took 2 weeks off) since October, and I just bumped up to 20mg a couple weeks ago. I have also been using ipamorelin (another GHRP) along with it lately and I just added CJC-1295 DAC to the stack yesterday. Hoping I see some results comparable to low dose HGH supplementation :)
Also, I use MK alongside my anabolic cycles, as well as in PCT and off cycle.
I have RAD-140 and LGD but have not used either yet, I was considering using the RAD on the tail-end of the cycle I'm currently on.

Edit: Just realizing how long this thread is and how old the posts were that I was looking at...
 
sanmarino said:
Danes: read the whole study carefully The longer you are taking MK-677 the less are the effects over the time period. In this study you can see that even after one week intake the GH-peaks are not anymore that high as at the first intake. You will see (the third picture from left) that a 12-month-intake of MK-677 is nearly identical with the baseline again (with some exeptions on the graph, partially the baseline is even higher than the GH of a 12-mont-intake).

A little quote: "Our body has its feedback systems to obtain its physiological levels. When a substance that modulates the endogenous distribution, it's always to be expected that this pushes the values only for a short time over the physiological values".

Therefore a long-term "supplementation" with MK-677 is not that effective (you can take exogenous HGH over a long period of time to have a constant level. With MK-677 that's not possible. With Huperzine-A you can probably prolong the effectiveness of MK-677, but also not for ever).

But yes I agree with you, there is no GH-bleed.
Click to expand...

Why is there so much confusing/contradictory information out there?

Why are there tonnes of other people saying that the research suggests that longer term use leads to higher and higher levels (6 months +)? Therefore suggesting that short term use is fairly pointless.

If the research says that MK cant sustain elevated GH levels then wouldn't they have just entirely discarded the compound as a GH deficiency drug and abandoned it by now?
 
How selective is Osterine? On the wiki page for SARMS it says that no sarms are currently completely selective so far (despite what the supplement industry will keep saying) so concern for heart enlargement/prostate etc is this adequately covered?
 
AK1 said:
How selective is Osterine? On the wiki page for SARMS it says that no sarms are currently completely selective so far (despite what the supplement industry will keep saying) so concern for heart enlargement/prostate etc is this adequately covered?
Click to expand...
You are right, SARM are not completely selective. Ostarine for example has no "zero" androgenic effect. There is one, but compared to other substances the androgenic effect up to 25mg/ed is very very low and thereofre safe for women.
The prostata will be affected, but on a very low basis (if we can say that up to now with the actual knowledge).
 
sanmarino said:
You are right, SARM are not completely selective. Ostarine for example has no "zero" androgenic effect. There is one, but compared to other substances the androgenic effect up to 25mg/ed is very very low and thereofre safe for women.
The prostata will be affected, but on a very low basis (if we can say that up to now with the actual knowledge).
Click to expand...

Okay thanks, yes that's why a lot of people dont get that 'on' feel with Osta. Low androgenic effect better for heart risks and baldness risks then? Or not necessarily?
 
AK1 said:
Okay thanks, yes that's why a lot of people dont get that 'on' feel with Osta. Low androgenic effect better for heart risks and baldness risks then? Or not necessarily?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily easier on the heart but it definitely mitigates negative effects on hair line and prostate.
 
christ83189 said:
Its kinda funny i was just thinking this morning that i hadnt seen yates84 comment on anything in a while...
Click to expand...
Been a crazy month for me homie but I'm back up in this thing as of today.
 
Fair enough, Baldness is cosmetic, whereas heart damage is not so it is that area I was particularly trying to evaluate, but some people worry about baldness 1st! Been trying to really assess the overall risk of sarms for a long time. No point in opting for them over stronger compounds if the risks are not lower - that was supposed to be the point. I know risk free performance enhancers may never exist, but at least a scale of risk might be able to be constructed to inform people as best as possible on safest options.
 
AK1 said:
Fair enough, Baldness is cosmetic, whereas heart damage is not so it is that area I was particularly trying to evaluate, but some people worry about baldness 1st! Been trying to really assess the overall risk of sarms for a long time. No point in opting for them over stronger compounds if the risks are not lower - that was supposed to be the point. I know risk free performance enhancers may never exist, but at least a scale of risk might be able to be constructed to inform people as best as possible on safest options.
Click to expand...

Imo sarms poses an overall low risk of side effects and are less harsh on the body than traditional ph/ds. They are an excellent starting point for new users and I would encourage you to try sarms first, especially if you are concerned about potential side effects.
 
Thanks. No I'm not new to this, my questions are here because I'm just trying to learn facts about new developments; as maybe there is some research out there that I am missing. Its like I've said quite a few times, the theory* on Sarms sounds great, but can any of the current sarms on the market truly claim to be an absolute sarm (a relatively or moderately* selective androgen receptor modulator is nearly there.... but not quite there) and aside from personal user feedback and limited trialing/research (that has only really looked at short term pros/cons and some of the more superficial risks of PEDs within a clinical, non sport/bodybuilding context), it is difficult to really make a conclusive decision at this stage. I guess the only way to really tell is to see long term use down the line.... which unfortunately takes time. Can SARMs cause heart alteration, increased risk of prostate cancer, liver damage (yeah theyre non methylated, but neither are many other toxins) - these are questions that are only partially answerable when combining user feedback and clinical research available so far from what I can see.
 
Hey guys, this is only one study. If you followed every negative study you would never use any of these research chemicals tbh.
 
yates84 said:
Hey guys, this is only one study. If you followed every negative study you would never use any of these research chemicals tbh.
Click to expand...

True, but are there any studies showing fat loss? I thought they showed that it prevented wasting and increased nitrogen retention/anabolism...?
 
I get routine blood work and i mean a full run up of everything and anecdotally in my body at least a 12 week run of LGD had no effect on PSA ( I did use on cycle support though) The only thing it did was tank lipids but surprisingly my post pct lipids were better than my pre PCT lipids

Pre cycle Cholesterol-
121
hdl- 72
ldl- 49

On cycle Cholesterol-
143
hdl- 21
Ldl-122

Post PCT Cholesterol-
129
HDL- 87
LDL- 42

Used Ar1macare pro and did tons of cardio (was doing a recomp LGD cycle)
also was on hawthorne berry for 16 weeks, so take it with a grain of salt

So basically avoid stimulants for long LGD cycles, i didnt see any real effect on lipids with my shorter LGD runs at 4-6 weeks
 
YoungBodyBuil said:
I get routine blood work and i mean a full run up of everything and anecdotally in my body at least a 12 week run of LGD had no effect on PSA ( I did use on cycle support though) The only thing it did was tank lipids but surprisingly my post pct lipids were better than my pre PCT lipids

Pre cycle Cholesterol-
121
hdl- 72
ldl- 49

On cycle Cholesterol-
143
hdl- 21
Ldl-122

Post PCT Cholesterol-
129
HDL- 87
LDL- 42

Used Ar1macare pro and did tons of cardio (was doing a recomp LGD cycle)
also was on hawthorne berry for 16 weeks, so take it with a grain of salt

So basically avoid stimulants for long LGD cycles, i didnt see any real effect on lipids with my shorter LGD runs at 4-6 weeks
Click to expand...

What kind of gains did you see with those shorter 4-6 week runs? What mg dosing?

Thanks man
 
YoungBodyBuil said:
I get routine blood work and i mean a full run up of everything and anecdotally in my body at least a 12 week run of LGD had no effect on PSA ( I did use on cycle support though) The only thing it did was tank lipids but surprisingly my post pct lipids were better than my pre PCT lipids

Pre cycle Cholesterol-
121
hdl- 72
ldl- 49

On cycle Cholesterol-
143
hdl- 21
Ldl-122

Post PCT Cholesterol-
129
HDL- 87
LDL- 42

Used Ar1macare pro and did tons of cardio (was doing a recomp LGD cycle)
also was on hawthorne berry for 16 weeks, so take it with a grain of salt

So basically avoid stimulants for long LGD cycles, i didnt see any real effect on lipids with my shorter LGD runs at 4-6 weeks
Click to expand...
How many mg? Numbers aren't bad at all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top