Finally: 2. gen sarm s-23 outthere.

[AR's King Silabolin]

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.

[NACH3]

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

[AR's King Silabolin]

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.

[NACH3]

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!