SARMs...

**peachfuzz** · 10-21-2008, 01:50 AM

They have been floating around for a bit now. Curious if anybody has given them a go yet?

Would you...?

**Gears** · 10-21-2008, 02:03 AM

They don`t seem that appealing to be honest, I saw this article from a different forum posted by "Thedoc07".

"SARMS are a new class of pharmacologic agents designed to act like steroids , but w/ out the unwanted side effects. In other words, they act on target tissues, in this case skeletal muscle, and are not attracted to other tissues in which androgen receptors are located, ie heart, breast, scalp, etc... The only compound to date known to be a "real" SARM is a drug called Ostarine, which is has undergone phase II clinical trials, as seen in the front page article on MD.

I am posting the abstract from the actual study that was performed on this drug. I question the idea that this drug could be used for significant anabolic benefit in healthy, trained males/females, at least at the dosages used in the trial. If you read carefully below, over the three month period given, the subjects gained only 1.2 Kg of LBM (2.5 pounds muscle), which over a year time frame corresponds to approximately 10 lbs. Which for someone who is wasting away from the catabolic state of cancer would be great, but for the average joe... given the proper dietary and training regimine, one could gain 10 lbs of muscle, AAS free, in a one year time frame!

I am skeptical that the SARMX product is a "real" SARM, and that it isn't just a marketing ploy to appeal to those who don't know any better.

Enjoy the read, and draw your own preliminary conclusions!

Dr. Avallone

Background: Cancer cachexia results in selective loss of skeletal muscle resulting in weakness, reduced physical activity and a lower quality of life. Cancer cachexia also diminishes response to chemotherapy and survival. Anabolic steroids appear to increase weight and muscle mass in cancer patients, but have the potential for masculinization in women and prostate stimulation in men. A new class of non-steroidal selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) is being developed for use in cancer cachexia. SARMs are designed to have predominately anabolic activity in muscle and bone with minimal androgenic effects in most other tissues. We conducted a randomized phase II proof of concept study of ostarine, the first-in-class SARM, in healthy postmenopausal women and elderly men prior to intitiating a phase II study in cancer patients. Methods: Sixty elderly men (mean age 66 years) and 60 postmenopausal women (mean age 63 years) were randomly assigned to ostarine 0.1, 0.3, 1 mg, 3 mg or placebo for three months. The primary end point was change from baseline to three months in total lean body mass (LBM) measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The key secondary end point was a stair climb functional performance test that measured speed and power exerted. Evaluations included laboratory safety assessments and additional assessments of androgenic activity including PSA, sebum production and luteinizing hormone. Results: Ostarine treatment resulted in a dose dependent increase in total LBM, with an increase of 1.4 kg compared to placebo (p<0.001) at the 3 mg dose. Increased LBM translated to an improvement in the stair climb test in both speed (+15.5% ± 12.9 faster time, p=0.006) and power (+25.5% ± 20.3 watts, p=0.005). There were no serious adverse events reported. There were no significant changes in PSA, sebum production or luteinizing hormone. Conclusions: Ostarine improves LBM and physical performance in healthy older men and women. Ostarine had no unwanted androgenic side effects. A phase II study is planned to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ostarine in patients with cancer cachexia.

**peachfuzz** · 10-21-2008, 02:16 AM

good read. thanks.

seems everyone that uses it has some vision problems.

**JiGGaMaN** · 10-21-2008, 09:15 AM

I agree with you on the SARMX or whatever the one is thats around probably isnt a genuine SARM although i have no evidence to support that. Something to consider: The studies were done on elderly men and postmenopausal women who probably arent bodybuilders. The dosage could also be a factor in how much LBM is gained. I'm willing to bet if you did the aforementioned study with test subjects from this board you would see significantly improved results.

**peachfuzz** · 10-21-2008, 12:45 PM

on another board alot of members are equating it to a prop cycle.

im just suprised nobody here has tried it yet. SARM S4 is the one i know of.

**Gears** · 10-21-2008, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by JiGGaMaN

I agree with you on the SARMX or whatever the one is thats around probably isnt a genuine SARM although i have no evidence to support that. Something to consider: The studies were done on elderly men and postmenopausal women who probably arent bodybuilders. The dosage could also be a factor in how much LBM is gained. I'm willing to bet if you did the aforementioned study with test subjects from this board you would see significantly improved results.

Yeah, the results may be skewed a bit because of the control group, but you also have to keep in mind if they are undertrained, they have a lot more room to grow toward their genetic potential. I would like to see them vary the age/experience groups though, but thats science, experiments are never set up correctly it seems.