SARMS · Peak Physique

SARMS

The increase in popularity of SARMs without an understanding of the risk profile has allowed them to be coined as the ideal first exposure for the female PED user.

Firstly, SARMS haven’t been approved for human use.

You can’t be informed if you don’t understand the risk profile of the compound in question.

In one cohort study they showed that SARMs are no more beneficial than AAS but carry a much LARGER risk profile on much smaller dosages.

SARMs did provide some promise as they seem to be more tissue selective than AAS on a mg/kg comparison… but again this does not translate to the escalated dosages seen in common recreational practice and just like AAs this selectivity is lost at higher dosages.

SARMs much like AAS will still cause suppression of the HPG axis. It produces a similar negative input on the feedback loop suppressing natural hormone production for a lesser return on the investment.

There isn’t a single SARM to date that is approved for human use by the FDA due to risks such as acute liver damage, decreases in HDL cholesterol, increased cancer risk to name a few.

From the current available evidence, the literature suggests that AAS outweigh SARMs in terms of risk profile BUT remember AAS are not without risk either.

We have a much more comprehensive understanding of what those risks are in both the short and long term, meaning we can mitigate some of the potential risk by making appropriate informed decisions around protocols and deployment.

11 comments