Why do people hate on sarms?

[Bitchwhipper2]

Theyre literally just safer steroids jfl.

-Less hairloss
-Less suppression
-Less prostate cancer
-Less mood issues
-Less aging

People just hate anything thats new

 

[MA_ascender]

-cope gains
-cope sides
-cope safety

organ damage with the sarms that actually do something

 

[aids]

Please provide proof for any one of your claims to be true. There is just not enough research on them.
People "hate" on them because we are not yet as familiar with their effects on the human body compared to something like testosterone in which its usage has been documented in hundreds, possibly thousands of clinical trials.
They are not inherently hated because they are new, but more the unfamiliarity associated with them being new.
And the fact they're praised by every single little kid that's been shilled shit by dumbass gym influencers.

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

Good reply, but i have a bone to pick with this

Please provide proof for any one of your claims to be true. There is just not enough research on them.

Its a well known fact they have way more anabolic signalling relative to androgenic.

That fact alone is enough to substanciate my claims as less androgenicity inherently causes less such effects

 

[aids]

Good reply, but i have a bone to pick with this

Its a well known fact they have way more anabolic signalling relative to androgenic.

That fact alone is enough to substanciate my claims as all the things I listed are caused by androgenic signalling

The ratios standalone do not necessarily mean they are better. I can take testosterone and with the right protocol, help to mitigate or completely prohibit certain side effects occurring from said androgenic signalling.

You could produce the same outcome from taking testosterone and adopting the right on-cycle support as well as PCT, compared to taking RAD-140, wherein adopting comparable on-cycle support and PCT would still not necessarily prevent the fact that you are susceptible to whatever side effects that we do not know exist from their usage.

To rephrase my contention, although SARMs standalone might lead to lesser suppression compared to steroids, the fact we simply do not know enough about them to rule them as safe for human usage over a long-term period means that it would be comparably safer to take steroids with the correct protocol to mitigate suppression/other side effects and hence not risk aforementioned unknown side effects.

 

[20/04/2008]

Theyre literally just safer steroids jfl.

-Less hairloss
-Less suppression
-Less prostate cancer
-Less mood issues
-Less aging

People just hate anything thats new

Gear used properly >> Sarms

 

[chasing aesthetics]

So sarms has:
-Less hairloss
-Less suppression
-Less prostate cancer
-Less mood issues
-Less aging

than steroids, and being natty has:

-Less hairloss
-Less suppression
-Less prostate cancer
-Less mood issues
-Less aging

than ______

fill in the blanks

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

So sarms has:
-Less hairloss
-Less suppression
-Less prostate cancer
-Less mood issues
-Less aging

than steroids, and being natty has:

-Less hairloss
-Less suppression
-Less prostate cancer
-Less mood issues
-Less aging

than ______

fill in the blanks

Faulty logic.

GainForGain sarms are better for muscle gains than steroids in regards to the side effects I listed

The ratios standalone do not necessarily mean they are better. I can take testosterone and with the right protocol, help to mitigate or completely prohibit certain side effects occurring from said androgenic signalling.

You could produce the same outcome from taking testosterone and adopting the right on-cycle support as well as PCT, compared to taking RAD-140, wherein adopting comparable on-cycle support and PCT would still not necessarily prevent the fact that you are susceptible to whatever side effects that we do not know exist from their usage.

To rephrase my contention, although SARMs standalone might lead to lesser suppression compared to steroids, the fact we simply do not know enough about them to rule them as safe for human usage over a long-term period means that it would be comparably safer to take steroids with the correct protocol to mitigate suppression/other side effects and hence not risk aforementioned unknown side effects.

I personally think its worth the think. But someone else might judge it differently

 

[actualunderstander]

-cope gains
-cope sides
-cope safety

organ damage with the sarms that actually do something

Well I don't condone PED use, SARMs actually do work. I've seen multiple friends take the weakest sarm (ostraine) and make anabolic gains. It definitely did something

 

[flippasav]

It’s weaker than roids?

 

[Hexmask]

Everything you mentioned can be prevented.

 

[appealmaxed]

why do u want to use ped?

 

[VeryFuglyNiyguhs]

Sarms are for pussies too scared of a needle.

 

[DNRDniggerking]

worse ratio of gains to suppression
worse ratio of gains to aging
worse ratio of ....
compared to actual steroids

YET

if we take the absolute value of such side effects they indeed do have less

if you are not a gymcel retard then SARMs mog.

 

[mlbmogger252]

Depends the sarm but it’s pretty easy to just dose safely and there are minimal sides if you know what you’re doing. People are stupid

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

It’s weaker than roids?

In a way, yes because the doses taken are a lot lower. But the gains you get from sarms relative to side effects mog roids to dirt.

why do u want to use ped?

Both of us are already using PEDs in the form of fat burners. But Im not planning on hopping on any anabolic compounds.

worse ratio of gains to suppression
worse ratio of gains to aging
worse ratio of ....
compared to actual steroids

Infact. You cant be farther from the truth.

Sarms inherently have a lower androgenic side effect to gains ratio compared to roids

 

[appealmaxed]

Both of us are already using PEDs in the form of fat burners. But Im not planning on hopping on any anabolic compounds.

but fat burners dont have sides like aging, hair loss etc.
i dont see any negatives in fat burners but i do from anabolic compounds

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

but fat burners dont have sides like aging, hair loss etc.
i dont see any negatives in fat burners but i do from anabolic compounds

Thats why we are taking fat burners instead of anabolics.

But if I were to take anabolics I would definitely start off with sarms to be safe

 

[DNRDniggerking]

View attachment 3299688
Infact. You cant be farther from the truth.

Sarms inherently have a lower androgenic side effect to gains ratio compared to roids

depends, rad 140 rapes your hair and the gains are meh so is it really like that?

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

depends, rad 140 rapes your hair and the gains are meh so is it really like that?

Rad140 blows ass.

Lgd doesnt rape hair nearly as hard

 

[Peter Steele]

because its for cowards and pussies who scares from a needle

 

[Saint Casanova]

Please provide proof for any one of your claims to be true. There is just not enough research on them.
People "hate" on them because we are not yet as familiar with their effects on the human body compared to something like testosterone in which its usage has been documented in hundreds, possibly thousands of clinical trials.
They are not inherently hated because they are new, but more the unfamiliarity associated with them being new.
And the fact they're praised by every single little kid that's been shilled shit by dumbass gym influencers.

Most popular sarms have extensive clinical trials and results. It’s not like they have no research behind them

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

because its for cowards and pussies who scares from a needle

 

[DNRDniggerking]

Rad140 blows ass.

Lgd doesnt rape hair nearly as hard

I am prob gonna take lgd in like 3 weeks. did you try out?

 

[20/04/2008]

So sarms has:
-Less hairloss
-Less suppression
-Less prostate cancer
-Less mood issues
-Less aging

than steroids, and being natty has:

-Less hairloss
-Less suppression
-Less prostate cancer
-Less mood issues
-Less aging

than ______

fill in the blanks

Bs
Then by that logic
Hcg and hmg and injectable fsh enclomiphene
Mogs every steroids

 

[20/04/2008]

I am prob gonna take lgd in like 3 weeks. did you try out?

explain a lot of things…..
Your missing out a lot really

 

[DNRDniggerking]

explain a lit of things…..
Your missing out a lot really

nigga what?

 

[20/04/2008]

View attachment 3299865

Its true
Sarms plateaus after a certain dosages
You can be on every Sarm known to men yet still someone on 750 mg test mogs you to gandy heaven (that for high dosages)
For low dosages a guy on 250 test who is sport level trt would mog every low dose Sarm guy
While being less toxic
You have to be retarded to think Sarms are better than roids jfl
@DNRDniggerking

 

[DNRDniggerking]

Its true
Sarms plateaus after a certain dosages
You can be on every Sarm known to men yet still someone on 750 mg test mogs you to gandy heaven (that for high dosages)
For low dosages a guy on 250 test who is sport level trt would mog every low dose Sarm guy
While being less toxic
You have to be retarded to think Sarms are better than roids jfl
@DNRDniggerking

water buddy. ratio of risk to gains is shit on SARMs, I said that word for word. its just better if you want a boost without nuking your hair due to androgenicity

 

[20/04/2008]

water buddy. ratio of risk to gains is shit on SARMs, I said that word for word. its just better if you want a boost without nuking your hair due to androgenicity

Bs
Sarms cause hairloss
And are 0% androgenic
Through some mechanism tgat resemble serms (don’t forget rad-140 was used for women with breast cancer)

 

[Peter Steele]

Bs
Sarms cause hairloss
And are 0% androgenic
Through some mechanism tgat resemble serms (don’t forget rad-140 was used for women with breast cancer)

not enought studies

 

[20/04/2008]

not enought studies

Bs

 

[Peter Steele]

Bs

OP is scared of needle thats why he promotes Sarms

 

[Peter Steele]

One cycle of test and bolde wouldnt hurt you OP

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

OP is scared of needle thats why he promotes Sarms

One cycle of test and bolde wouldnt hurt you OP

I dont use either lil nigga

 

[Peter Steele]

I dont use either lil nigga

then its over

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

then its over

Roidcel cope

Maxxed out natty is pretty much ideal anyways

 

[Peter Steele]

Roidcel cope

Maxxed out natty is pretty much ideal anyways

I can get 5 years of natty physique in 3 months

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

I can get 5 years of natty physique in 3 months

Well. I wont do it because i know id end up developing bdd

 

[Peter Steele]

Well. I wont do it because i know id end up developing bdd

Stop being a pussy boyo just inject that shit

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

Stop being a pussy boyo just inject that shit

Im good nigga.

Maybe in the future

 

[DNRDniggerking]

Bs
Sarms cause hairloss
And are 0% androgenic
Through some mechanism tgat resemble serms (don’t forget rad-140 was used for women with breast cancer)

sarms are not 0% androgenic. they are not perfectly selective, yet they are nowhere near the androgenicity of test. my T mid asf and my hairline is going to shit imagine If I pin test

 

[20/04/2008]

sarms are not 0% androgenic. they are not perfectly selective, yet they are nowhere near the androgenicity of test. my T mid asf and my hairline is going to shit imagine If I pin test

Do bloods see if you have low estrogen or high cortisol

 

[AySab]

Theyre literally just safer steroids jfl.

-Less hairloss
-Less suppression
-Less prostate cancer
-Less mood issues
-Less aging

People just hate anything thats new

I agree.

 

[DNRDniggerking]

Do bloods see if you have low estrogen or high cortisol

will do some time later

 

[chasing aesthetics]

Faulty logic.

GainForGain sarms are better for muscle gains than steroids in regards to the side effects I listed

Well if my logic is faulty it would help with an explanation. I assume your following statement is is not your explanation. As I actually agree that sarms give you more gains for the amount of side effects you get, which is completely besides my point.

 

[Bitchwhipper2]

Well if my logic is faulty it would help with an explanation. I assume your following statement is is not your explanation. As I actually agree that sarms give you more gains for the amount of side effects you get, which is completely besides my point.

I misinterpreteded your reply then.

 

[chasing aesthetics]

Bs
Then by that logic
Hcg and hmg and injectable fsh enclomiphene
Mogs every steroids

What exactly did you think my point was? Let me ask you this. What do you think causes the most hairloss, supression, mood issues, side effects in general out of A) sarms or B) being natty?

 

[chasing aesthetics]

I misinterpreteded your reply then.

The blank was supposed to be "sarms". Implying that being natty has less side effects than sarms... and indirectly saying that being natty might be the best move all in all for looksmaxxing.

 

[20/04/2008]

What exactly did you think my point was? Let me ask you this. What do you think causes the most hairloss, supression, mood issues, side effects in general out of A) sarms or B) being natty?

Sarms duhh
And hcg and hmg aint natty (at max dose they are more anabolic and androgenic than 250-350 testosterone)