nob
Iron
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2023
- Posts
- 16
- Reputation
- 21
When people talk about sarms on this forum, people will either say "test is safer and more effective bro!" or "why would you risk your health for that/it ruins your endocrine system!"
Test is probably more effective but on test you have to deal with way stronger suppression and likelihood of needing proper pct (usually means taking nolvadex, which btw can have some pretty nasty sides such as BRAIN DAMAGE), way more aromatization to estrogen (which means needing AI. not a big deal but it's needlessly more expensive), and way more dht conversion (aka balding. can be mitigated with fin/dut/ru but again, needlessly more expensive). As far as i can tell the only ways in which test is safer is that it's not liver toxic and doesn't give you ED while on cycle (both of which are temporary so who cares).
For the latter claim, the main thing sarms do to damage your hormones is TEMPORARILY suppress natural T production. Of all the anecdotal reports I've read, the ONLY people I've seen claim that it gave them low test long-term did not run a SERM or PCT with it. Every other side effect I've seen is temporary and will probably only matter to people with pre-existing conditions that make them more predisposed to risks with them (like lowered lipids and whatever else).
So can anyone who claims either of the above please point to actual evidence? (test being more natural or more studied doesn't mean it's safer JFL. it's true that more natural things are usually safer but i don't think it applies in this case. and just because it "messes with your hormones" doesn't mean it's bad long term)
Test is probably more effective but on test you have to deal with way stronger suppression and likelihood of needing proper pct (usually means taking nolvadex, which btw can have some pretty nasty sides such as BRAIN DAMAGE), way more aromatization to estrogen (which means needing AI. not a big deal but it's needlessly more expensive), and way more dht conversion (aka balding. can be mitigated with fin/dut/ru but again, needlessly more expensive). As far as i can tell the only ways in which test is safer is that it's not liver toxic and doesn't give you ED while on cycle (both of which are temporary so who cares).
For the latter claim, the main thing sarms do to damage your hormones is TEMPORARILY suppress natural T production. Of all the anecdotal reports I've read, the ONLY people I've seen claim that it gave them low test long-term did not run a SERM or PCT with it. Every other side effect I've seen is temporary and will probably only matter to people with pre-existing conditions that make them more predisposed to risks with them (like lowered lipids and whatever else).
So can anyone who claims either of the above please point to actual evidence? (test being more natural or more studied doesn't mean it's safer JFL. it's true that more natural things are usually safer but i don't think it applies in this case. and just because it "messes with your hormones" doesn't mean it's bad long term)
