MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Any feed back on SARMS?
- Thread starter Xlgx
- Start date
unforgivingconsumer
New Member
EDIT: Just realized this is in the legal forum, and I don't know why...
Old thread but I'll give you my feedback on MK-2866 (Ostarine) and LGD - 4033.
I started the Ostarine at 25mg a day and was basically crushed by lethargy. I was uncomfortable getting behind the wheel for at least two hours after dosing because it made me so sleepy. On day three, I had to back off to 12.5mg and that seemed to rectify the problem. Those may be unusual side effects but I guess they aren't out of the realm of possibility. I didn't really notice much in the way of anabolism, but I sure as hell noticed it's androgenic sides. By day three, I was taking an AI because my nipples were so itchy and/or painful I would wake up in the middle of the night and feel them. By day six, 12.5mg ED Aromasin was doing nothing, so I went on a 7-day blast of Nolva at 20mg a day. That stopped the gyno dead in its tracks. Basically, I think Ostarine is worthless for anything. Oh, and my skin got disgustingly oily. Like more so than on 500mg test (on right now).
Same thing goes for the LGD-4033, I titrated up to 5mg a day and noticed immense androgenic sides. However, I got a sense of well-being that was pretty great. I feel like the LGD might worth the trouble, as it can be considered pretty anabolic. It is a later generation SARM, so it's supposed to better than the early ones like S4 and MK-2866. Again, I had to use and AI and Nolva to keep the sides under control.
Now, to be truthful, SARMs were my first foray into anabolic substances/AAS (which really, judging by my results, SARM is just a cute marketing term to garner more interest and sales, and I'm sure, FDA approval). So my body may have been reacting rather violently to an imbalance in its hormonal homeostasis by jacking estrogen production through the roof. SARMs are poorly understood, underdeveloped (for now), and a total waste of money. Just ask yourself; do I really want an oily face, itchy nipples, a bit of hairloss, and no gains?
One more thing of interest. I am 100% sure I was shutdown by week 4, because I started to get hit by a pretty gnarly lethargy and in general just felt like shit. I'm sure it wasn't the AI because I backed off for a week and started having estrogen problems again. So that's about when I threw in the towel. Never using them again.
Yes, I know that SARMs "aren't supposed to be androgenic." They are, and from this guy's perspective, they're a half-baked concept.
TyroneMoreGains
New Member
Great Feedback. SARM's are as worthless as CellTech.
I hate the fact that some assholes try to sell these to Teens as a "safer alternative" to AAS. Even though SARMs do shut you down and provide little to nothing.
Whoremoans
Member
Yeah I just read this great article on SARMs called "save your money and buy something useful". Good read tbh
TyroneMoreGains
New Member
SARMS are the shit that some of those other dumbshit forums push on their members...and we know one well enough 
alessandro79
New Member
Hello Guys
I've tried http://www.jwsupplements.co.uk/quad-stack/ (S4 + LGD-4033+ MK 2866) some days ago.
Bed experience, I'm sharing this stuff effects in the follow thread.
Everyware I found a lot of good informations by Labs or Guru, but only bed experiences in the forums, this is very very strange. At the moment I didn't find any common users reporting good results.
https://thinksteroids.com/community...labs-quad-stack-testing-on-my-self.134365751/
For any questions write me, you are wellcome.
I've tried http://www.jwsupplements.co.uk/quad-stack/ (S4 + LGD-4033+ MK 2866) some days ago.
Bed experience, I'm sharing this stuff effects in the follow thread.
Everyware I found a lot of good informations by Labs or Guru, but only bed experiences in the forums, this is very very strange. At the moment I didn't find any common users reporting good results.
https://thinksteroids.com/community...labs-quad-stack-testing-on-my-self.134365751/
For any questions write me, you are wellcome.
Last edited:
shreddn1
New Member
I may get bashed but I like cardarine at 10-20mg a day my endurance is up its been about three weeks
shreddn1
New Member
Deff no powerful steroid guys but an extra edge for me for real
S-4 and cardarine DEFINITELY help muscle endurance, and I dont mean just cardio endurance but actual muscle stamina. Rep ranges go way beyond what they were, WAY BEYOND
shreddn1
New Member
God yes man I'm telling it out like mad lately and still never getting tired... Only 10mg card a day... You know of a good source pm me mines out
I've heard things about s4 and cardarine...can these be used alone?
shreddn1
New Member
Yea but card is great in tren for endurance, on cycle you get lethargic I've felt totally diff... Exactly what I needed
unforgivingconsumer
New Member
Those are two SARMs that I specifically avoided (S4 and Cardarine).
S4 for the vision sides, even though I hear fat loss is good. And Cardarine, because of the studies indicating cancer at every dose in rats. I just don't want to play that game.
I chose LGD-4033 because anecdotally it provides excellent gains, and because of this study regarding its safety:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22459616
I also chose Ostarine for its documented safety profile.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24189892
Notice it was specifically developed for cancer related muscle wasting and demonstrated a favorable safety profile.
SARMs are brand new and untested comparatively (to AAS), and while short term pharmacological studies have been done regarding the safety of some SARMs, S4 and Cardarine are two SARMs that have been deemed specifically unsafe and unfit to pursue by their developers. Because I have not tried them, I cannot say for certain, but they may provide excellent performance enhancement. However, I feel the safety profile just does not balance the risk/reward scale.
Unfortunately, I can't find the Cardarine (GW-501516) toxicology report online (getting 404 error and I didn't save to local). But I remember the smallest dose given to rats was 5mg/kg per day, and they developed tumors literally everywhere within weeks. Convert that to human equivalency and there is cause for concern even at the recommended doses.
AAS has been used since the 50's, and is extremely safe when use intelligently. Why bother with reinventing the wheel when you aren't a research scientist? It's more dangerous and unless you like experimenting with dangerous chemicals, there is a seriously diminished return compared to AAS.
I would urge you to stop taking Cardarine immediately. S4 is give or take, but anything that destroys my night vision for long periods of time makes me wonder about permanent eye damage.
@MindlessWork I'm tagging you just in case you aren't following the thread so you can consider my response before you decide whether or not to take these SARMs.
S4 for the vision sides, even though I hear fat loss is good. And Cardarine, because of the studies indicating cancer at every dose in rats. I just don't want to play that game.
I chose LGD-4033 because anecdotally it provides excellent gains, and because of this study regarding its safety:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22459616
I also chose Ostarine for its documented safety profile.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24189892
Notice it was specifically developed for cancer related muscle wasting and demonstrated a favorable safety profile.
SARMs are brand new and untested comparatively (to AAS), and while short term pharmacological studies have been done regarding the safety of some SARMs, S4 and Cardarine are two SARMs that have been deemed specifically unsafe and unfit to pursue by their developers. Because I have not tried them, I cannot say for certain, but they may provide excellent performance enhancement. However, I feel the safety profile just does not balance the risk/reward scale.
Unfortunately, I can't find the Cardarine (GW-501516) toxicology report online (getting 404 error and I didn't save to local). But I remember the smallest dose given to rats was 5mg/kg per day, and they developed tumors literally everywhere within weeks. Convert that to human equivalency and there is cause for concern even at the recommended doses.
AAS has been used since the 50's, and is extremely safe when use intelligently. Why bother with reinventing the wheel when you aren't a research scientist? It's more dangerous and unless you like experimenting with dangerous chemicals, there is a seriously diminished return compared to AAS.
I would urge you to stop taking Cardarine immediately. S4 is give or take, but anything that destroys my night vision for long periods of time makes me wonder about permanent eye damage.
@MindlessWork I'm tagging you just in case you aren't following the thread so you can consider my response before you decide whether or not to take these SARMs.
Thanks for the heads up @unforgivingconsumer...the more I learn the better I'd be and it seems SARMS are dangerous as fuck and for the life of me why are these being pushed by so many quacks?
unforgivingconsumer
New Member
Bottom line, faggots like Dylan Gemelli and his SARMS1 goons are pushing this stuff on other forums because of....
MONEY.
If you want to try SARMs, stick with those that are demonstrated safe in a clinical setting. Be aware they will cause suppression (like I learned the hard way), so you might want to have test or pct on hand.
SARMs suck so I would just stick to AAS. But then I again, I tried them!
MONEY.
If you want to try SARMs, stick with those that are demonstrated safe in a clinical setting. Be aware they will cause suppression (like I learned the hard way), so you might want to have test or pct on hand.
SARMs suck so I would just stick to AAS. But then I again, I tried them!
I read that doses given to rats that developed cancer were absolutely insane, like 900 times the amount a human would use at typical doses of 10mg-20mg/day
So much truth to that...the more I dig the more evil I see with these quacks.
Also it's good to see some solid discussion on sarms as there's so much shit about them being slung on other forums. This info should help keep people from losing their health over this.
unforgivingconsumer
New Member
Unfortunately I am unable to find any toxicology reports. If anyone has one that would be awesome, I'm not trying to spread misinformation.
I used this study on mouse to human conversion of resveratrol to make my decision.
http://www.fasebj.org/content/22/3/659.full
Quoted from the study:
"To convert the dose used in a mouse to a dose based on surface area for humans, multiply 22.4 mg/kg (Baur’s mouse dose) by the Km factor (3) for a mouse and then divide by the Km factor (37) for a human (Table 1⇓ ). This calculation results in a human equivalent dose for resveratrol of 1.82 mg/kg, which equates to a 109 mg dose of resveratrol for a 60 kg person."
Again, I'm going on memory here regarding toxicology. I literally cannot find the study.
So if I just do a dirty inference and multiply mouse doses by 5, I cant acquire the toxic human dose.
unforgivingconsumer
New Member
@Demondosage
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2013-03/wada-issues-alert-on-gw501516
This is something that usually isn't done for most drugs....
Also the toxicology report I was referencing is linked on that web page. It 404's which is pretty strange....
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2013-03/wada-issues-alert-on-gw501516
This is something that usually isn't done for most drugs....
Also the toxicology report I was referencing is linked on that web page. It 404's which is pretty strange....
