T Nation

Try SARMs


#1

I have always wanted to hop on gear and have annoyed you guys with my ignorant posts and questions about it in this sub-forum in the past. I have spent a long time since researching AAS and studying endocrinology, which I find fascinating.

But recently, I've come to the depressing conclusion that AAS are not for me. I have a genetic background that strongly predisposes me to metabolic syndrome. I have a bit of a bad temper at times too.

So I was thinking that I might be a reasonable candidate for SARMs. I've most researched Ostarine, and while I'm not too crazy about the associated decrease in HDL, it seems partially alleviated by its beneficial effects on TGs and insulin sensitivity. I am aware that everyone in a study where the mean age was 63.6 remained in the low risk category for CV disease, so that seems promising at least (granted the dose given was only 0.3-3mg per day). I also like the legality aspect.

What do you guys think? Am I a good candidate to try a SARM? If so, what might be a good pick for me? Are there any sides related to metabolic syndrome I should know about that I may not be aware of? Would it be prudent to run lower dosages because of my existing risk factors for CV disease?


#2

I think you’d be fine to make a run with ostarine. And I would use the recommended dose as well, from day 1. Ostarine is such a minimally effective product in the first place, that if you’re going to run it, you should run it as effectively as possible.

I actually tried ostarine before I went the AAS route. I have to say that I don’t believe I got anything out of it whatsoever. But some claim to see solid gains from it. Seems to be hit or miss. As far as I know, there aren’t any sides you need to be worried about, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t come up… not enough research in general to know a more complete answer to this.


#3

Ostarine might be a safe bet. As mentioned, it isn’t the most potent thing around, but for someone who has never used AAS, the results could be satisfactory. Add in some GHRP and CJC and you may benefit more.


#4

Id look into peptides as well. Cant comment on sarms.


#5

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I think you’d be fine to make a run with ostarine. And I would use the recommended dose as well, from day 1. Ostarine is such a minimally effective product in the first place, that if you’re going to run it, you should run it as effectively as possible.

I actually tried ostarine before I went the AAS route. I have to say that I don’t believe I got anything out of it whatsoever. But some claim to see solid gains from it. Seems to be hit or miss. As far as I know, there aren’t any sides you need to be worried about, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t come up… not enough research in general to know a more complete answer to this.[/quote]

Yeah, it’s interesting. I’ve heard many people call it “expensive creatine” but have also seen reports of 5lb LBM gains and solid strength gains. I’ve heard that fakes are really common, so I wonder if that has anything to do with it.


#6

If I were to run something other than AAS, I’d combine LGD-4033 with MK-677.

Can’t imagine it’d be comparable to AAS though


#7

[quote]Yogi wrote:
If I were to run something other than AAS, I’d combine LGD-4033 with MK-677.

Can’t imagine it’d be comparable to AAS though[/quote]

Never heard of these before. Did a quick Google search and I have to say they sound like a couple of pretty interesting drugs. Looks like I have some research to do to see if they are right for me.

Thanks much!


#8

i ran Ostarine a couple years ago, and thought it was okay…

there were very few side effects, moderate gains in endurance and strength, minimal suppression, and it might even help bone density.

however, at body building doses (25 mg) it appears to suppress the HPTA, so a PCT should be followed. i did get some minor acne, but nothing too serious.

also, since the SARMs act mostly on the androgen receptors, increasing the amount of androgen receptors should increase your gains… i’d suggest taking 2 grams of l-carnitine l-tartrate for the first 3 weeks, as well

for info on PCT, i’d suggest skimming through here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_training_performance_bodybuilding_gear/thoughts_on_planning_pct


#9

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:
If I were to run something other than AAS, I’d combine LGD-4033 with MK-677.

Can’t imagine it’d be comparable to AAS though[/quote]

Never heard of these before. Did a quick Google search and I have to say they sound like a couple of pretty interesting drugs. Looks like I have some research to do to see if they are right for me.

Thanks much![/quote]

if you try MK-677, please let us know what you think… it seems pretty interesting, and relatively easy to add to about any cycle.

here’s a thread i started on it a while ago with several other links: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_training_performance_bodybuilding_gear/mk677ibutamoren


#10

FWIW,

i 've been finding some interesting studies (phase III clinicals on both, i believe) on SARMs right now (Ostarine and LGD-4033)

one study on LG (they used doses from .1 mg to 22 mg/day) showed that it acts almost exclusively on muscle androgen receptors (they specifically mention that there’s no change in hemocrit, etc)…

however, it looks like Ostarine acts on bone as well muscle. but, it doesn’t seem to affect the prostate… some of those studies used doses up to 125 mg

^based off my limited scientific knowledge and the studies i’ve seen, it looks like LG has more potential for building muscle mass. however, Ostarine seems more applicable to injury recovery, endurance, etc…


#11

[quote]cycobushmaster wrote:
FWIW,

i 've been finding some interesting studies (phase III clinicals on both, i believe) on SARMs right now (Ostarine and LGD-4033)

one study on LG (they used doses from .1 mg to 22 mg/day) showed that it acts almost exclusively on muscle androgen receptors (they specifically mention that there’s no change in hemocrit, etc)…

however, it looks like Ostarine acts on bone as well muscle. but, it doesn’t seem to affect the prostate… some of those studies used doses up to 125 mg

^based off my limited scientific knowledge and the studies i’ve seen, it looks like LG has more potential for building muscle mass. however, Ostarine seems more applicable to injury recovery, endurance, etc…[/quote]

I would think that mosts SARMs shouldn’t affect prostate much since they shouldn’t be affected by 5-AR.

The hematocrit finding was interesting though, and definitely encouraging for somebody whose BP kind of sucks already.


#12

What is your blood pressure usually?


#13

Only thing i can say for sure i got was yellow vision from S4.Just a question about sarms? Have you ever seen a pro bodybuilder or strength athlete ever mention using them. I havent and I looked alot before i tried them.


#14

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
I would think that mosts SARMs shouldn’t affect prostate much since they shouldn’t be affected by 5-AR.[/quote]
Neither is Masteron, trenbolone, or Anadrol. That alone doesn’t mean necessarily having particularly low effect at the prostate.

Although the SARMs claim to be very selective, I don’t think the rat assays necessarily demonstrate that in human beings there’s no effect at the prostate when used at bodybuilding-effective doses. They might be comparably low (relative to anabolic effect) as various synthetics or might be a little better but so far as I know it’s undemonstrated.

To me the only reason for a SARM is lack of availability of anabolic steroids or concern of legality; for the pharmaceutical companies however there are various reasons having to do with money much moreso than pharmacology I think.


#15

Bill, do we take that to mean you don’t particularly rate SARMs?


#16

Right, not particularly. For something that’s intended to be at an HRT or mild “prohormone” type level they can work, but other than being oral (if personally important) with no hepatoxicity and being legal, I don’t see a reason to prefer them over anabolic steroids. And certainly not for a stronger cycle. I’d be more confident by far in the safety of a strong anabolic steroid cycle than in an equally strong, if doable, SARM cycle. In particular with regard to vision, but there could be other unexpected things going on. The track record is not there to anything remotely like the extent as with anabolic steroids.

Other factors that it seems usually isn’t remembered with the SARMs are that if the anabolic effect is strong enough to really make a big difference to muscle, then natural T production will be shut down just as much as when using a non-aromatizing anabolic steroid getting the same effect, and in principle it should be the case that estrogen levels will fall too low also in just the same way.

Unlike the effect with nonaromatizing cycles I don’t have blood test results to back that up, but it virtually has to be the case, and is consistent with reports of libido failing so commonly in these types of cycles.


#17

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
I would think that mosts SARMs shouldn’t affect prostate much since they shouldn’t be affected by 5-AR.[/quote]
Neither is Masteron, trenbolone, or Anadrol. That alone doesn’t mean necessarily having particularly low effect at the prostate.

Although the SARMs claim to be very selective, I don’t think the rat assays necessarily demonstrate that in human beings there’s no effect at the prostate when used at bodybuilding-effective doses. They might be comparably low (relative to anabolic effect) as various synthetics or might be a little better but so far as I know it’s undemonstrated.

To me the only reason for a SARM is lack of availability of anabolic steroids or concern of legality; for the pharmaceutical companies however there are various reasons having to do with money much moreso than pharmacology I think.[/quote]

Bill, have you had a chance to see the SARM studies, where they are using them IRT cancer treatments?

glad to have you back, by the way!


#18

Thank you!

I’ve read a number of SARM studies but remember my conclusions more than specific details, as I didn’t find the details useful.

There has been some evidence actually showing modulator activity, as opposed to the assertions of it that had been made before. This was interesting.

I hadn’t seen a study that used a dosage that seemed comparable to a real bodybuilding cycle.

I’d be more than glad to look at or look again at any particular study you find of interest!


#19

BP is consistently 135-140/85, probably on the higher end of that now. Nothing seems to bring it down. I’m only 25, though. Very strong family history of Type II Diabetes. I realize that this probably isn’t high enough to get dangerous acute effects, but that’s not what I’m worried about. My concern is more related to the stuff that might have not so transient complications in the future: dyslipidemia, endothelial damage, LVH, etc.

I’m not necessarily looking for a bodybuilding-strength cycle. My goals are more physique oriented, so I would be okay with a weaker cycle, if it meant milder on CV health.

Basically, I just want to find the safest way to get a little bit of a boost for someone with a lot of CV disease risk factors.


#20

I really wouldn’t look to the SARMs as being any better in this regard than low dose anabolic steroids, and possibly worse. The reason for possibly worse is that, at least over the long term, the lowest cardiovascular risk comes with moderately-lower-end of normal range estradiol, in the 20s pg/mL. The SARMs do not aromatize and so if tending to moderately low, but normal, estradiol levels in the first place, I’d expect a drop to subnormal.

Very moderate dose anabolic steroids while estradiol is maintained in the 20s often improve blood lipid profile (not that that’s proof of being actually better) over baseline. I don’t see a reason to consider SARMs safer in that regard.