Why is there no meta analysis for the efficacy of sarms ?

[reptiles]

I had a look on google scholar for the terms Rad 140 LGD 4033 2 very effective muscle building drugs but this forum already knows all about these drugs. That being said and all when I try to find an meta analysis I have found 0 I have found 3 studies case studies each leading to bad liver conditions that stayed for 3 months while they were on LGD 4033 or rad 140.

These are all shit studies on rats mean jack shit as well because while they have similar endocrine systems obviously they aren't humans we have completely differen't endo crine systems there is to date 0 actual meta analysis that has collected all the studies together of any done on humans and analysed them

 

[Paroxysm]

Probably not enough monetary incentive

AAS already work "well enough" as it is when it comes to treating muscle wasting from certain diseases

The famous cardarine cancer study may have contributed to big pharma not wanting to invest much in SARMs too

 

[Orc]

instead of gnawing down on random bathtub chemicals why don't you just pin test.

 

[ItsOverCel]

bruh you are just like a child you are spamming shit threads about gear sarms and bunk shit not doing anything I wont give you any advice you must be too high inhib to use anything, as soon as you start cycling you will stop it as you will immediately notice all the possible and impossible side effects just like redditor soyboys do

 

[reptiles]

instead of gnawing down on random bathtub chemicals why don't you just pin test.

You mean TRT?

 

[Paroxysm]

instead of gnawing down on random chemicals why don't you just pin test.

The appeal of sarms is that they don't fully crash your hpta unlike test. But otherwise yes sarms are pretty "weak" compared to a normal cycle

even just your run of the mill TRT gives better gains than RAD-140 in some people

 

[ItsOverCel]

The appeal of sarms is that they don't fully crash your hpta unlike test. But otherwise yes sarms are pretty "weak" compared to a normal cycle

even just your run of the mill TRT gives better gains than RAD-140 in some people

utter rubbish
sarms provide better gains long term than test. How can you possibly think that if 1 mg of rad 140 is much stronger than 1 mg of test then 70 mg rad 140 a week (10 mg a day) can be weaker than like 100 mg of test e? Sarms build more muscle, roids just bloat and you think its all muscle. Muscle takes much longer to build and sarms build real tissue faster than roids

 

[Paroxysm]

utter rubbish
sarms provide better gains long term than test. How can you possibly think that if 1 mg of rad 140 is much stronger than 1 mg of test then 70 mg rad 140 a week (10 mg a day) can be weaker than like 100 mg of test e? Sarms build more muscle, roids just bloat and you think its all muscle. Muscle takes much longer to build and sarms build real tissue faster than roids

Source?

 

[ItsOverCel]

Source?

my personal experience and experience of hundreds of people who have been using them for 8 years and can compare them to roids

 

[Paroxysm]

my personal experience and experience of hundreds of people who have been using them for 8 years and can compare them to roids

goes against the personal experience of literally every opinion i've ever read on roid forums

so you're only 18 and have extensively experienced both sarms and AAS?

 

[ItsOverCel]

goes against the personal experience of literally every opinion i've ever read on roid forums

because these people have never touched real sadms

so you're only 18 and have extensively experienced both sarms and AAS?

no

 

[klip11]

OP is an efficacy