T Nation

Anavar vs SARMs - The "Test Base" Discrepancy. Natural Test Health

Hey all i’m new to TNATION and seeking some insight. (sorry for long post)

I would VERY VERY much appreciate an answer to this!!!

So I was really hoping someone could explain this immense confusion I have regarding the effects on natural testosterone production in the context of SARMS and AAS. So, its well-known that SARMS are sort of the “safe” steroids (less side effects, but much less gains) compared to AAS, and most people will take SARMS stacked together with other SARMS or by themselves (The key point here is that there is no test base) AND note it’s proven that SARMs lower natural test production while using them…

So, for instance let’s say Bob takes LGD for 12 weeks at 10mg: If his natural testosterone was say 600 ng/dL before, then after the cycle, total test was 150 ng / dl. This example is fairly accurate, but let’s just say you would experience a drop of 50-70%. In the world of SARMS this is normal - then your test would return to normal in the following weeks.

Now let’s say Jim ran Anavar only at 30mg a day (we are not here to talk about the level of dosing, maybe 40mg though) for 4 weeks. I’m not sure if this is entirely accurate but I heard anavar suppresses test at 5-6% per week ( albeit not sure at what dose ). But If Jims’ test was 600 ng/ dl before the cycle, then 450 ng/ dl total test after sounds reasonable as an average right? (this is me being worst case scenario I think? please correct if wrong).

Now if this is true, can someone explain the discrepancy between the two communities? Now I completely understand that without testosterone present, the body will be unable to maintain normal physiological functions that are controlled and governed by test. So I can 100% see why people say every cycle should have testosterone as a base or it should NOT be run, and you know nothing about nothing etc. etc. but then why do SARM users not suffer from this!?!? Shouldn’t they be fukked in the ass feeling lethargic etc? Also from a health POV completely shutting down your test by using exogenous test, isn’t that far worse than just suppressing it for a few weeks, I’m not afraid of needles, but this just seems a little healthier?

So basically what’s with the discrepancy. Are SARM users immune to low test problems, or is it that any roid will actually shut you down 100% instead of suppressing you no matter what, and you may as well use test because natty test is fukked anyway, do they affect test differently? like lh fsh Etc? will anavar shut you down?

This whole question stems from me wondering, why is it not better to run anavar only (like 30-40mg for 4-6 weeks), compared to SARMS.
And essentially iv’e got some friends who have run / are running sarms only now, but what would
30-40 mg of anavar over 4-6 weeks be like instead? (with liver support)

Cheers :slight_smile:
feel free to call me out if this is fukking stupid, but please explain why. I have done alot of research but can’t answer my own question.

SARMS, in clinical trials have been shown to suppress endogenous testosterone production significantly when taken at doses high enough to elicit a myotrophic response.

Oxandrolone is no different to other anabolic steroids, the myth that oxandrolone isn’t supressive to the HTPA stems from data showing no supressive in doses of 1-5mg/day.

(Ox at 15mg/day almost cuts t production in half in five days)

(Clinical data demonstrating supressive effect of ostarine on testosterone with doses as little as 1mg/day)

As to SARMS being safer? Potentially, it depends, the biggest risk (in my opinion) from AAS is cardiac hypertrophy with associated detrimental changes in the structure of the myocardium. Aside from blood pressure, increased RBC count and beta adrenergic receptor upregulation (heart having to work harder) from nervous system stimulation caused by AAS, cardiac hypertrophy is also caused by androgen receptor binding in cardiac myocytes. Since SARMS are selective, if they can bypass androgen receptor binding in cardiac myocytes then in my opinion they’d be a hell of a lot safer. However current data demonstrates low doses of SARMS tank the lipid profile, the current side effects on lipid profiles and muscle mass seem to be very similar to anabolic steroids but with reduced androgenicity (in which case we already have agents like this, oxandrolone, methenolone etc.) However prolonged, high dose use of these agents do have the potential to cause LVH, more so oxandrolone than primo (in my opinion), if SARMS don’t bind to cardiac myocytes then they’re probs safer.

(Look at these results, does this look “safe” to you? Changes on lipids, SHBG, muscle mass, testosterone production etc look pretty similar to AAS to me, esp when we see people taking SARMS at 10-30mg/day)

Anecdotal reports from users taking SARMS (if they even are SARMS) also include

  • hypertension
  • increase in blood viscosity
  • liver and renal stress

S4 is no longer being researched due to the fact that it binded to certain receptors in the optic nerve, causing vision problems (don’t know the full deets, will update later when I do some more research on it), similar to how Clomid and nolva can cause ocular nerve damage

Edit: also Anavar is more dangerous than testosterone… But it’s also stronger.

2 Likes

I will answer your question because I happen to know the answer. It’s not because I have a super science brain, but because I’m a keen observer of human behavior. Here is the answer…

SARMs have been pitched—endlessly—as safer, as not causing suppression, as the new world order that will displace the old. Then when that line of thinking was smashed by scientific evidence the sellers of these products simply moved on to the next reason why YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST TRY THESE SARMS, BRO, which was “hey, they’re not illegal like steroids”. The people who are looking at these drugs are learning about them in the places that sell the drugs to them. Evo is basically the landing page for a variety of SARM sources. So the cash machine needs to keep running. In order for it to run you need to keep the stories brief, plausible, and dynamic as common knowledge changes. Doing a solo run of a SARM is roughly as bad on your natural testosterone as your above mentioned hypothetical with Anavar. But Anavar isn’t made by a supplement maker who also sells you a preworkout. Steroids are illegal. That’s a thick black line. But for a long time SARMs were at worst a grey market product made by supp companies whose other products you knew and trusted. And hey, plenty of bros are getting good results, and it’s not like I’m gonna be running an oral solo. That would be irresponsible. But SARMs can be used in pct, bro. They’re safe, bro.

That’s why. That attitude still persists. If you only read certain forums then you’d never know what utter bullshit it is. Now add to that the fact that guys won’t buy something illegal and they certainly won’t inject something into their bodies, but with these magic pills they’ll make gainz without any side effects or suppression. They tell their friends. And then they tell their friends. And so on. It becomes part of the mythology.

Your question is a good one. The answer isn’t particularly interesting though. Because it’s the same answer that can be used for a lot of questions. The answer is “some people are dumb and don’t bother to learn anything”.

2 Likes

@unreal24278
@iron_yuppie

Wow, thanks heaps for the response guys. Also, really appreciate the link to research articles.

Very insightful