Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Silabolin's Avatar
    Silabolin is online now Rude at this time... Sorry!
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,500
    Very supressiv. Thats a good sign. Not testet on humans. Suppliers think its too early to try it. Anyone heard rumors, anyone tried it?

    If it turns out to be more anabolic than the best from 1. gen, LGD, yet just as safe, im all in.
    Last edited by Silabolin; 04-18-2017 at 02:43 AM.

  2. #2
    DocToxin8's Avatar
    DocToxin8 is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    I'd like to know too
    Posts
    1,569
    Very supressive?
    That means it's a strong androgen in the brain, just like AAS.
    Isn't the point of SARMs not to be supressive?
    I guess one could also say that if they're mild on the prostate and skin then they're also SARMs.
    But in that way of thinking nandrolone would be a SARM. As would many other of what we call conventional AAS.

    Will be interesting to see when it comes.

  3. #3
    hollowedzeus is online now Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    709
    I would wait to see some reviews first probably. How do you know it doesn't have a mental side effect like binding to the receptors in your diaphragm causing it to explode....

    S4 scares the shit out of me with its eye binding shite

  4. #4
    Silabolin's Avatar
    Silabolin is online now Rude at this time... Sorry!
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by DocToxin8 View Post
    Very supressive?
    That means it's a strong androgen in the brain, just like AAS.
    Isn't the point of SARMs not to be supressive?


    Will be interesting to see when it comes.
    well yes but none of them are. No sarms from generation 1 are non-supressive. That is not an argument against s-23. Well, maybe cause they say u need a minpct only after the old sarms but a full pct is needed after s-23.

    Biggest problem from gen 1 is that they are pretty weak (maybe except from lgd). but if s-23 is stronger without any androgenic sideffects, toxic sideeffect and estrogenic/progestin sideeffects, it will be interesting.
    Last edited by Silabolin; 04-18-2017 at 06:17 AM.

  5. #5
    NACH3's Avatar
    NACH3 is online now VET
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Baking chicken
    Posts
    17,369
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Silabolin View Post
    well yes but none of them are. No sarms from generation 1 are non-supressive. That is not an argument against s-23. Well, maybe cause they say u need a minpct only after the old sarms but a full pct is needed after s-23.

    Biggest problem from gen 1 is that they are pretty weak (maybe except from lgd). but if s-23 is stronger without any androgenic sideffects, toxic sideeffect and estrogenic/progestin sideeffects, it will be interesting.
    BoiseBeast did a log on his SARM use... they indeed suppressive his test went from well above range to under 300ng/dl - there's no long term studies on any of them and there is a direct correlation suppressing the HPTA! And agree a PCT should in fact be used regardless if not in TRT imho

  6. #6
    Silabolin's Avatar
    Silabolin is online now Rude at this time... Sorry!
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by NACH3 View Post
    BoiseBeast did a log on his SARM use... they indeed suppressive his test went from well above range to under 300ng/dl - there's no long term studies on any of them and there is a direct correlation suppressing the HPTA! And agree a PCT should in fact be used regardless if not in TRT imho
    What?..Ok ..hm...lets talk as brothers. I mean as family brothers. Man i like u, ur doing a good job.

    If u were my family brother i would go.....what?...Noone claims to say that sarms are non-supressive. EVERYBODY with one week experience knows that. But who cares. They could be supressive as fuk all day if they turned out to be androgenfriendly, estrogen/progestin friendly and toxicfriendly.
    My opinion is that sarms from gen 1 meet those criteria.

    Threadquestion is, will this also yield for gen 2, like s-23. Im on trt so i give a fuck about supressiveness.

  7. #7
    NACH3's Avatar
    NACH3 is online now VET
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Baking chicken
    Posts
    17,369
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Silabolin View Post
    What?..Ok ..hm...lets talk as brothers. I mean as family brothers. Man i like u, ur doing a good job.

    If u were my family brother i would go.....what?...Noone claims to say that sarms are non-supressive. EVERYBODY with one week experience knows that. But who cares. They could be supressive as fuk all day if they turned out to be androgenfriendly, estrogen/progestin friendly and toxicfriendly.
    My opinion is that sarms from gen 1 meet those criteria.

    Threadquestion is, will this also yield for gen 2, like s-23. Im on trt so i give a fuck about supressiveness.
    I agree with ya - i see(not from you) that people think and push that SARMs aren't 'that' suppressive but we do know they are - and like you I'm on TRT which gives us an advantage on shutdown as we already are...

    I'm not sure about s23 but I'll ask my buddy who knows SARMs very well but if androgenic and less toxicity than it's ahead of the game - I have no experience w/SARMs but I hear good feedback from the people around my way who use em - like I mentioned b4 it's hard to call without any long term studies which does make me iffy At this time!

  8. #8
    redz's Avatar
    redz is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    My HOME GYM
    Posts
    13,007
    I didn't know much about this sarm so here's a tiny bit of info source is evolutionary.org

    SARMS Matt AshlarMatt Ashlar 3 months ago No Comments 1,474 views 2 likes
    SARM S-23


    We have all heard of selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMS), so we know that they are a great legal and safe alternative to steroids . These days, the most commonly used SARMs are Ostabolic (Ostarine), Andarine (S-4), and Anabolicum (LGD). But have you heard of S-23? In this article we will examine this SARM by looking at its uses in bodybuilding, and other more surprising applications.

    s-23-sarm chemical structure
    Fig 1. S-23 SARM chemical structure
    Table of Content
    Bodybuilding Uses
    Alternative Uses
    Side Effects
    Dosages and Cycles
    Conclusion

    Bodybuilding Uses
    Developed by GTx, S-23 is an orally active nonsteroidal SARM with a very high binding affinity to androgen receptors. This makes it stronger than other popular SARMS like Ostabolic (mk-2866) or Andarine (S-4). Therefore, the main effects of S-23 are increased muscle mass, decreased fat mass, and a decrease in the size of the prostate.

    Additionally, in a study done on rats a dose equivalent to 15 milligrams (mg) for a 180lb male was shown to also increase bone mineral density, as well as promote muscle mass growth and fat loss. Hence, S-23 is versatile in that it can be used for bulking and for cutting.

    Alternative Uses
    A 2009 study performed on rats showed potential for S-23 to be used as a male contraceptive. In this study, six rats were given a dose of 0.1 mg per day for 10 weeks. As a result, both LH (Luteinizing Hormone) and FSH (Follicle-Stimulating Hormone) levels decreased. These effects were statistically significant, since four of the six rats had no sperm in the testis. What’s more, none of the rats was able to impregnate a female rat during mating trials. However, this contraceptive effect was temporary – after just 100 days from last dose the infertility was reversed, and there was a 100% pregnancy rate.

    Side Effects
    The main side effect of S-23 use is the suppression of natural testosterone production. This is what gives it potential as a male contraceptive, and also makes it very different from other SARMS. While ostarine (ostabolic), andarine (s4), and Anabolicum (LGD) may cause a mild shut down, S-23 is extremely suppressive. Consequently, this will be a major factor in deciding whether to use this SARM or opt for the more widespread choices. Unfortunately, there have not been any human studies, so not much is known on other potential side effects.

    Dosages and Cycles
    Dosages of S-23 can vary, and they will be very dependent on what the goal is. For instance, if a user were looking for muscle building and fat loss, a dose of 15-25 mgs per day would be appropriate. On the other hand, if someone was looking to use it for the contraceptive effects, a higher dose of around 50 mgs per day would be more effective. Nonetheless, this is not recommended because there have not been studies done on humans to replicate the contraceptive effect shown in rats.

    s23 sarm1 bottle
    Fig 2. S-23 SARM bottle @ SARMS1
    In spite of the fact that after 100 days the rats did recover natural testosterone levels , humans would need to run a full PCT (Post Cycle Therapy ). Since S-23 causes severe suppression, I would always recommend the Perfect PCT.

    Conclusion
    S-23 has many potential benefits that range from muscle building and fat loss, to being a possible male contraceptive. Even though this SARM may seem very intriguing, it is still in a very early stage of development and study. Thus, I would proceed with caution when considering this compound. Keep in mind that there are other SARMS on the market today, such as ostabolic and testolone, which give similar muscle building and fat loss effects and are much more studied. Besides, other SARMS will also cause much less suppression of natural testosterone production, allowing the user to run a considerably milder and shorter PCT. All in all, I would recommend sticking to the tried and true until more research is done on S-23. In simple terms, stay away from this SARM until we know more.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •