My point is; if sarms are supposed to be a safer alternative to ph why bother if there going to tax you? You might as well go for ph’s that offer more gains if the sides are similar... just my 2cents( euro cents that is
)
I guess that really depends on what "tax" you're willing to accept. If I can run 6 weeks of LGD, have great results, and at the same time see no
noticeable negative side-effects, I'd take that any day of the week over a DMZ/Msten run where the results might be better but I know I will see some mild acute liver issues and definitely some hairloss. Personal experience and acceptance of perceived sife-effects will always be the ultimate decider.
SARMs, from my experence, don't affect hairloss, liver values and blood pressure
as much as many oral steroids. Of course the gains aren't usually as nice either. And yes, they can absolutely affect hormones, lipids, liver values, etc. My SARM experiences have been overwhelmingly positive for the most part.
Having said all of that, who knows what the long-term side-effects of using these investigational drugs will be... I think part of the problem with SARMs, and to a lesser extent oral steroids, is that you never really know what you're getting or if the dose actually matches the label claim. We're all really just guessing with this stuff anyway. SARMs are also readily available so the ease in which they can be purchased is just silly.
For those that think these drugs are an escape from having negative side-effects while still having great gains, that's just not the case. The "side-effect free" SARM agenda that was pushed by the people who originally brought these compounds to the research/supplement market has had a hard time dying. SARMs are not without side-effects in their paid studies and they are certainly not without
increased drawbacks when used at many times the studied dosing. These selective androgens are not nearly as selective, when overused as bodybuilding supplements, as people would like to believe.
One thing is for sure, SARMs are not close to being the "holy grail" that people wish they were. Many more years of study and development needs to take place. Thankfully these pharmaceutical companies have all of us as guinea pigs....
I'll agree with your notion that, if the side-effects are similar, why would you choose a SARM over a more widely used steroid hormone. For many though, the side-effects are less or at least
different and that tends to match up with the "gains".
)