Safety of SARMS

/Safety of SARMS

Safety of SARMS

Safety of SARMS

Safety of SARMS

SARMS are still in the early stages of clinical trials but there have been a lot of really promising animal and human studies are done. For example:

• The SARM LGD-4033 has been shown to increase bone mineral density, bone formation, and bone strength in preclinical models, leading to a small, 21-day randomized, placebo-controlled, ascending dose trial in healthy young men. The drug was well tolerated and showed significant dose-proportional gains in lean body mass and leg press strength.
• Ostarine has undergone the most extensive clinical trials to date. In a phase 2a study, ostarine increased lean body mass decreased fat mass, and modestly improve the homeostatic model assessment (HOMA), a measure of insulin sensitivity (Dalton 2007 abstract from Endo meeting).
• S-4 was studied in 120 ovariectomized rats for 120 days. S4 treatment decreased body fat and increased body strength. It was also revealed that S-4 provides the unique potential to prevent bone resorption, increase skeletal muscle mass and promote bone anabolism, making S-4 a possible new alternative for the treatment of osteoporosis and sarcopenia.

We don’t want to create the false assumption that SARMS are completely void of side effects. Anything hormonal can cause side effects. However, used responsibly, the side effects of SARMS will be small or non-existent. SARMS do not convert into unwanted products like DHT or estrogen so they will not impact your endocrine system as negatively as steroids.


There is a lot of misinformation about SARMs causing cancer because of a clinical trial in which Winstar rats who were given Gw-501516 developed cancer.

Here is a direct quote from the aforementioned study:

GW501516, a non-genotoxic PPARδ agonist, was assessed for carcinogenic potential by daily administration (oral gavage) to Han Wistar rats for 104 weeks. Males were given 0, 5, 15 or 30 mg/kg/day for the first 6 weeks of the study. For the remainder of the study, males were given 0, 5, 20 or 40 mg/kg/day. Females were given 0, 3, 10 or 20 mg/kg/day for the entire study. GW501516 produced test article-related neoplastic findings in multiple tissues at all doses.

Let’s look at the doses given.

Equation 1:
Human Equivalent Dose (mg/kg) = Animal
dosage (mg/kg) × (Weightanimal [kg]/
Weighthuman [kg])(1–0.67)

For a 90kg (roughly 200 pound) human:
Human Equivalent Dose (mg/kg) = Animal
dosage (mg/kg) x (0.15kg/90kg)0.33
Human Equivalent Dose (mg/kg) = Animal
dosage (mg/kg) x 0.1211

You can also use Equation 2:
Human Equivalent Dose (mg / kg) = Animal
does (mg / kg) × Km ratio

With the Km ratio given in the table below.
The reason I did not want to use equation (2)
is because it uses a human reference body
weight of 60Kg which is much less than your
typical weight lifter.


The male rats were given 0, 5, 20 or 40 mg/kg/day. For a 200 pound / 90 kg male, this is equivalent
to 0, 54.9, 219.6, or 439.2 mg/day. The study was run for 104 weeks.

This raises a lot of questions.
1. Why did GSK run a study where the lowest dose was five-time greater than what would be commonly taken for performance enhancement? For comparison, Tylenol (acetaminophen) toxicity in a single dose for an adult starts at 7.5g, just 2x the maximum dose of 4g/day recommended by a medical professional.
2. Why run the study continuously for 104 weeks? The life expectancy of a Winstar rat is only 2-3 years. This would be the equivalent of a human using Gw-501516 almost their entire life.
3. Why not run a new trial at lower doses given with what we know now from the anecdotal experience?

Another thing that needs to be taken into account is that different mammals do not develop cancer at the same rate. Animal models have been essential in cancer research for obvious practical and ethical concerns associated with human experimentation, but you can no directly correlate animal models to human models.

For example, Elephants have trillions of more cells than humans and live a long time, yet they have lower cancer rates. This is called “Peto’s paradox”, named after the scientist Richard Peto who noticed that cancer prevalence is not correlated with body size. Only about 5% of elephants die from cancer. This is staggeringly low when you consider that one in five humans will die from the disease. At the other end of the scale, smaller animals also demonstrate Peto’s paradox. For instance, Winstar rats are extremely cancer-prone, even though they live short lives and have far fewer cells than humans. You cannot directly extrapolate rat models to human models in cancer research since rats are genetically predisposed to a high incidence of tumors and cancers.

Get LGD-4033 here:

Get S4 here:

Get Ostarine here:

Get GW-501516 here:


“My research indicates that SARMS are not liver toxic. I have reviewed hundreds of bloodwork results from people using SARMS and I did not see any liver toxicity. Which begs to ask the question, why is this rumor of SARM liver toxicity so rampant? The false propaganda of liver toxicity began as a speculative statement made by those trying to dissuade people from developing an interest in SARMS. It originally came from close-minded naysayers, outdated coaches afraid of change, and the scientific type who says many negative things about something they don’t know about as a default. For example, before we know the truth about something we can either say a positive statement such as there is no proof of any liver toxicity, or we can see a negative statement such as there is no proof that there isn’t liver toxicity and that liver toxicity cannot be ruled out. People used a misleading statement as a scare tactic to prevent people from using SARMS.

When big pharmaceutical companies realized these compounds could cure major diseases, of which they made billions of dollars off treating the symptoms, they viewed SARMS as a threat and started campaigns to try and get these compounds off the market. They were unable to find any serious side effects or addiction that would warrant these compounds being legal under the current statutory framework, so they started propaganda campaigns to try and get the public to support the outlaw of these compounds. They also began censoring any positive information about SARMS so the FDA would be misled to believe that SARMS was not a drug, but rather a prodrug dependent on methylation and metabolites for their effectiveness. The FDA simply published exactly what the pharmaceutical companies requested them to write and once the FDA says something it becomes law, even if there’s no evidence to support it. The document was written by the FDA claiming liver toxicity had zero scientific evidence backing it. Every person on the internet who reads this document becomes misinformed, and a snowball effect occurs. 

I was one of the few people to know the entire backstory because I created a movement in favor of freedom in which many people support, even people inside the government. But just to be completely certain, after that publication came out I began a series of experiments mega-dosing SARMS, taking over 100 times the therapeutic dosage, and still, my lab work reveals no liver toxicity.

I was one of the few people to know the entire backstory because I created a movement in favor of freedom in which many people support, even people inside the government. But just to be completely certain, after that publication came out I began a series of experiments mega-dosing SARMS, taking over 100 times the therapeutic dosage, and still, my lab work reveals no liver toxicity.

I have reviewed some lab work where people’s liver enzymes have slightly increased while on a SARMS cycle, but the liver enzymes were always within a healthy range and the increase is completely consistent with increased performance in the gym. When your performance increases in the gym as a result of the strength and stamina increases from SARMS, it increases your ability to break down muscle which results in higher liver enzymes. I continue to experiment and report my findings and I’m not ruling out any possibilities, but I have not seen any evidence of liver toxicity and I believe I have done more experiments with SARMS than anyone in the world.

Side note – Some of the rumors of SARM liver toxicity may have stemmed from the fact that a lot of
companies have been putting prohormones in their products instead of SARMS because of prohormones cost a one-tenth as much as SARMS.”


By |