Your thoughts on S4?

[boisebeast]

Curious what everyone thinks of S4 on this board. I've seen a vast array of different opinions on the compound and varying results in logs. I've also heard that it's more suppressive than ostarine, but I'm not sure if that's true or not. Please share your thoughts or experiences with S4

[AR's King Silabolin]

My thoughs just now (they change all the time): Its the sarm with most sides, even visiondisturbance and as many find sarms in generall to have too many sides compare to the output when you look at steroids, i wouldnt use it.

But, sarms shine at most when you use them for fatloss before a cycle and s4 is the sarm which will aid best in fatloss. Almost like a ppar agonist.

So if it wasnt for the nigthvisionproblemes i seriously would consider it, but i need my eyes at nigthtime cause i often work then.

[InternalFire]

Sarms are research chemicals for the most part, and it could carry unknown hazardous consequences since it is still a "young" compounds in a sense and little is known long term, unlike steroids such as testosterone etc, are around for century, known for its effects and sides inside-out, why not to use leverage and run something that's proven to work and bring results to the table almost by the book instead of "chasing rainbows"

S4 is by far the strongest sarm and compared to Testosterone, however sides are much more severe, and permanent for ones vision, should one develop those and we dont know how much more unknowns there are.

I would say not to touch these rat-chems (sarms) and just go with hardcore diet and some basic test cycles, and if feel like in for a joyride, consider some orals in the longer run, but always study damn things before you go launch them in to your system

I do keep on reading and finding amazing info in such as one does not necessarily need to go all out on etc 500mg week for 12weeks to get the best results, alot folks who experiment deeply with low doses of test etc 250-350mg a week usually gain as much as those who crush 500+ mg test a week, but its only down to ones discipline and knowledge in diet, nutrition, training ways and recovery.

I begin to believe in saying that less can be more if utilized well, so next time I will go blast once my trt cruise is dialled in, I will probably max go ~300-350mg a week, just brainstorming

[AR's King Silabolin]

I feel this is my brother picking day. Insane: S4 is by far the strongest sarm and compared to Testosterone, I dont agree, LGD is even stronger, more anabolic. But S4 has more sides.

[InternalFire]

I feel this is my brother picking day. Insane: S4 is by far the strongest sarm and compared to Testosterone, I dont agree, LGD is even stronger, more anabolic. But S4 has more sides.

I dont agree on any sarms in general nor have any personal experience, so I can only talk what I have read and on how I drew my conclusions, I think they're the most dangerous chemicals mixed with placebo and some naive inexperienced expectations of unknown, and that's how people get results, and in reality I believe that the ones who push them sarms as "good-to-go" most of the time have hidden agenda and motives behind it all, I believe they are some way tied to selling these stuffs or at least believing in placebo so hard it becomes second reality for these peoples, its big business in selling sarms, I mean real big money behind all this.

[AR's King Silabolin]

well, legit bloodwork from guys all over the world for years, do not tell those are the most dangerous chemicals.

I guess increased chances for cancer do not show ont those bloods, but i havent seen one possible case yet where they have speculated in sarmsrelated cancer.
Only problem as i see it is that all sarms on the internet these days are 1. generation. The more efficient 2. generation is stil out of reach for the supp.companies. But ive read those 2.generation sarms, which are far more anabolic, also come with more sides.

[AR's King Silabolin]

U should listen to a senior Member son...lol

[InternalFire]

U should listen to a senior Member son...lol

oh wow, youre so proud right now, up in the clouds

[InternalFire]

well, legit bloodwork from guys all over the world for years, do not tell those are the most dangerous chemicals.

I guess increased chances for cancer do not show ont those bloods, but i havent seen one possible case yet where they have speculated in sarmsrelated cancer.
Only problem as i see it is that all sarms on the internet these days are 1. generation. The more efficient 2. generation is stil out of reach for the supp.companies. But ive read those 2.generation sarms, which are far more anabolic, also come with more sides.

we can talk all we want but reality is, these are and will remain research chemicals, two wrongs dont make one right so talking about companies using loopholes trying to push this in to supplement industry are doing nothing else but pure business, these are not hormones or steroids - try make your body syntesize any of these naturally unlike example of testosterone and I dont even wanna go thinking what can happen to ones body or genetics, and I am sorry but I am not going to waste my time debating something that has no merit to me.

I wish you have all the time and health to try it all on yourself, to research and publish actual studies on human specimens, your friends and colleagues and I wish you have no sides or long term severe adverse consequences to suffer from these chemicals, I also hope for the best to all folks who decide to run these sarms chemicals and I hope I am wrong to be pointed finger 50-60-70 years later, so all turns out well and everybody stays happy with their results at the end, but I will NEVER gonna go push magic spells such as sarms, without having actual long term evidence or experience of my own, so good luck to you man, and I wish you gain knowledge along with your post-count status on this forum

[user567]

we can talk all we want but reality is, these are and will remain research chemicals, two wrongs dont make one right so talking about companies using loopholes trying to push this in to supplement industry are doing nothing else but pure business, these are not hormones or steroids - try make your body syntesize any of these naturally unlike example of testosterone and I dont even wanna go thinking what can happen to ones body or genetics, and I am sorry but I am not going to waste my time debating something that has no merit to me.

I wish you have all the time and health to try it all on yourself, to research and publish actual studies on human specimens, your friends and colleagues and I wish you have no sides or long term severe adverse consequences to suffer from these chemicals, I also hope for the best to all folks who decide to run these sarms chemicals and I hope I am wrong to be pointed finger 50-60-70 years later, so all turns out well and everybody stays happy with their results at the end, but I will NEVER gonna go push magic spells such as sarms, without having actual long term evidence or experience of my own, so good luck to you man, and I wish you gain knowledge along with your post-count status on this forum

The irony here is SARMS were invented to be safer than traditional anabolics with less sides. They might just be but we wont know for a long time. Its hard to refute the FDA approved studies and statistical data from mk2866 though.

[InternalFire]

The irony here is SARMS were invented to be safer than traditional anabolics with less sides. They might just be but we wont know for a long time. Its hard to refute the FDA approved studies and statistical data from mk2866 though.

I encourage to back your statement with a link to public scientific statement where it states exactly what you say, or retract your words so you dont lead uneducated ones in a wrong direction

[boisebeast]

Thank you guys for sharing your opinions. I tend to lean more towards the perspective of InsaneMuscle, but I really just wanted to get a feel for everyone's thoughts on this compound. I agree that some test would be way better in terms of predictability of side effects (both short and long term), but I'm 23 and most people suggest waiting until 25 to run AAS. SARMS are appealing because they are easier to recover from than AAS and thus tend to be better for someone like myself who is on the younger side. Obviously this means nothing is they are either ineffective or dangerous. Anyway, this thread was for education purposes above all else. Thanks for sharing everyone