SARMs (selective androgen receptor modulators) are a novel new class of experimental research drugs; they are not approved as dietary supplements or for OTC human use. While the number of SARMs studies steadily increases, trustworthy data and reviews for SARM products are still understandably hard to come by.
Successful experiments require due diligence: careful planning, including methodical consideration of goals and preferred outcomes, determining what factors will define success, and procuring trustworthy equipment and SARMs stock. In this article we discuss ways to distinguish between good sources of information and poor ones, leading to decisions about quality purchase options for SARMs versus inferior ones.
These days it seems that every supply warehouse and manufacturer is selling SARM stock, regardless of product knowledge depth, with thousands simply trying to capitalize on the momentum currently behind these new wonder drugs. Companies realize that if SARMs’ promise as an almost side-effect free alternative to traditional anabolic steroids holds true, the myriad potential medical and performance-enhancing applications could have considerable financial implications.
Do Your Research
When dealing with any new class of drugs, it is important to learn how to navigate the literature and reviews and weigh different perspectives, how to ascertain which data are unbiased and unfettered by sales and marketing agendas. Google Scholar, a freely accessible web search engine that draws on information from journal publications, university repositories, and other websites, is an excellent place to start.
As with normal Google search engine, one simply enters in keywords to search. For example, a search for GW501516, Cardarine, or GSK-516 yields pages of potentially useful information on Cardarine. Similarly, when searching for information or supply sources for the popular SARM drug Ostarine, alias names MK-2866, Enobosarm, or GTx-024 can also be used. Ligand also goes by trade-name LGD-4. Ibutamoren has aliases MK-677, L163191 and Nutrobal. Andarine goes also by S4, S-40503, and GTx-007. RAD-140 is new but has already been marketed as Testalone or Testolone.
Numerous open access journals and SARM research papers are also available. The Journals of Gerontology, published by The Gerontological Society of America, are free of restrictions on their access and in many cases completely free to use and reference. Another one of hundreds of SARMs reviews is The safety, pharmacokinetics, and effects of LGD-4 in healthy young men, clearly a must-read for research pertaining to Ligand use in male populations.
Newcomers to SARMs should prefer recently-published and peer-reviewed papers. Keep in mind, however, that journal-published scientific research, even peer-reviewed, does not automatically qualify as legitimate, and avoid drawing conclusions from single, stand-alone studies unless absolutely convinced of its legitimacy.
SARMs Source Talk forum is garbage, cannot be trusted, and is crawling with sellers’ fake accounts (read #3 here). Other than that ‘bro circle jerk’, we do generally believe anecdotal evidence and SARMs advice that rely on personal testimony can be used to add a nuanced perspective to your research and planning. Even though fitness and weight-loss communities are just starting to learn about SARMs and their numerous advantages over traditional anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS), they are already SARMs forums where one can glean perspectives from previous or current users regarding their experience with these compounds.
iSARMS Forums is a widely-visited forum about SARMS, with around 30,000 members and almost 400,000 posts. One can read about the performance-enhancing and muscle-building effects of SARMs from people who have actually used them for extended periods of time and at the dosages used, sometimes AAS-equivalent doses. Other AAS-related forums, such as Steroid.com, MESO-Rx, or RealPeptide are also potentially helpful sources of information, but critical thinkig is a must to avoid “bro science” and overly-opinionated information that started out wrong and, parroted back over and over, remains wrong.
While you should not expect members of AAS-related forums who have experimented with SARMs as a way how to enhance their performance and build muscle to share personal information with you, the experiences shared among collective members of such SARMs websites can point to unexplored aspects of SARMs and inspire further research.
Not All SARM Sites Are Made Equal
On the whole, researchers should take a scientifically skeptical view of most SARM review sites, since most imply or claim to be objective, independent, and impartial, but in actually their content is bought and paid for. Often, SARM review sites post in-depth SARM product comparisons and reviews but only recommend a single product or source—the one that is paying them to write reviews.
Indicators of SARM site and supplier legitimacy include spec sheet data containing detailed and current lab analyses, such as COAs (Certificates of Analysis). as well as mechanisms in place that allow SARM user reviews. The best SARM review sites will include links to the scientific publications draw information.
Careful site review is also critical when selecting a quality SARM supplier, whether the study requires powder, liquid, or capsule form factor. To increase their profits, not all SARM suppliers use pharmaceutical-grade substances, and some do not even have proper feedback mechanisms in place to allow their customers to share their experience.
Avoid all suppliers who do not post a certificate of analysis (COA) for each product they sell as you could be paying for something that is either impure or without any active substance. Worst, you could unknowingly compromise your research by using a different active substance than expected.
Definitely avoid doing business with SARM suppliers who do not provide a simple way how to contact them, such as a contact form. A missing contact form often indicates that the supplier has something to hide and wants to stay as far away from its customers as possible.
SARM suppliers with an online store should use SSL or TLS encryption to protect the personal information of their customers. You can tell that a SARM supplier is providing communication security by the presence of a green padlock icon next to the supplier’s URL. Some of the most privacy-conscientious SAMR suppliers accept Bitcoin and other digital currencies, thus avoiding centralized payment processors such as Visa, MasterCard, or PayPal.
Many SARM researchers overspend because they initially choose a SARM vendor with the lowest prices on the market only to discover that the quality of the product is sub-optimal and unsuitable for their research. Using SAMRs that lack in purity introduces too many variables to account for, making them unfit for serious experiments, let alone human trials. Furthermore, most researchers who initially choose quantity over quality end up paying more for SAMRs in the long run because they find themselves having to repeat experiments over and over again to get reliable results.
SARMs are a new class of drugs with the potential to replace traditional anabolic steroids. Because researchers are still actively trying to understand the properties of SARMs and their benefits and downsides—not to mention that new SARMs are being invented fairly often—the amount of peer-reviewed research is limited, and greatly outnumbered by unscientific reports from the fitness community.
All researchers who are interested in exploring SARMs should carefully evaluate the quality of all SARM reviews from which they decide to draw. SARM researchers should also avoid vendors who sell SARMs of uncertain purity and prefer SARM vendors who publish lab test results for each product they sell. Experiments with low-quality SARMs often end up being a huge waste of time, and, in some cases, the researchers might even expose themselves to unknown compounds that could potentially even have numerous adverse health effects and require specialized safety equipment to be handled safely.