SARMs while on cycle.

[Mr I]

In that scenario I think you have a plethora of alternative aas to add better in place of sarms though.

But I look forward to a log if you chose that route. Always looking to learn more

[epix00]

In that scenario I think you have a plethora of alternative aas to add better in place of sarms though.

But I look forward to a log if you chose that route. Always looking to learn more

I agree with what you are saying. Maybe its someone with prostate issues, gyno sensitivity, blood pressure or just someone who wants to add something mild for one reason or another. I was just trying to get the point across that they didnt want to run a full on additional compound but wanted something to increase gains a little bit.

Im going to try it as I just don't buy into the information thats being passed around unless there is science to back it up. So for now Im continuing my search for research and seeing if I can find legitimate answers. If not, I will definitely log it.

[StanG]

On cycle is the only time i WOULD run a sarm. They were initially incorrectly marketed as not shutting down or effecting the hpta but thankfully the community is well educated enough that it is now known that they DO in fact impact your hpta. Because of that IMO on cycle is the only place I would run them and your right, they do have some nice benefits are far as reduced side effects that could actually make them useful for this purpose. They seem to have minimal impact on liver values, blood pressure, cholesterol (except lgd).
So IMO on cycle is the best place to run them and the reason for running them and not an actual steroid is the improved safety profile. That safety profile, however, does not extend to impact on the HPTA. Thats the important thing to remember.

[epix00]

On cycle is the only time i WOULD run a sarm. They were initially incorrectly marketed as not shutting down or effecting the hpta but thankfully the community is well educated enough that it is now known that they DO in fact impact your hpta. Because of that IMO on cycle is the only place I would run them and your right, they do have some nice benefits are far as reduced side effects that could actually make them useful for this purpose. They seem to have minimal impact on liver values, blood pressure, cholesterol (except lgd).
So IMO on cycle is the best place to run them and the reason for running them and not an actual steroid is the improved safety profile. That safety profile, however, does not extend to impact on the HPTA. Thats the important thing to remember.

Maybe you know why they are only recommended to be ran for like 6 weeks or less with this improved safety profile? That I havent been able to figure out either. And the fact that it does shut you down is another reason why I feel it should be ran on cycle as well. Yet, people say run it off and PCT it. It doesnt make sense to me.

[Mr I]

On cycle is the only time i WOULD run a sarm. They were initially incorrectly marketed as not shutting down or effecting the hpta but thankfully the community is well educated enough that it is now known that they DO in fact impact your hpta. Because of that IMO on cycle is the only place I would run them and your right, they do have some nice benefits are far as reduced side effects that could actually make them useful for this purpose. They seem to have minimal impact on liver values, blood pressure, cholesterol (except lgd).
So IMO on cycle is the best place to run them and the reason for running them and not an actual steroid is the improved safety profile. That safety profile, however, does not extend to impact on the HPTA. Thats the important thing to remember.

At 50mcg ed S4 did not shut me down. In fact I restored.

[StanG]

At 50mcg ed S4 did not shut me down. In fact I restored.

Yeah s4 is a bit of the exception. I have seen varied results from no shutdown to just minimal suppression The thing with s4 is it is also probably the weakest of all sarms and the vision sides sucks making it, IMO, pretty useless.
The problem is s4 was the first sarm and due to its minimal to non existent impact on HTA people then blanketed all sarms into that category - which is 100% incorrect. The other sarms range from suppressive in a dose dependent manner (osta) to extremely suppressive (LGD).

[StanG]

Maybe you know why they are only recommended to be ran for like 6 weeks or less with this improved safety profile? That I havent been able to figure out either. And the fact that it does shut you down is another reason why I feel it should be ran on cycle as well. Yet, people say run it off and PCT it. It doesnt make sense to me.

I dont know why the 6 week thing, it doesnt make sense to me either.
As far as running any sarm off cycle or in pct I say no way. I personally wouldn't even run s4 in either situation as I have seen blood work where even it was mildly suppressive.
I think we are just now finding the niche as to where sarms will fit in. There are a few factors that are hindering us from doing so properly. One is the BS hype and shady marketing being used. This is where irresponsible advice like run them in pct or without a test base come from. Companies that dont give a shit about peoples health they just want to sell product and make a $. The other thing that is standing in the way is that sarms are very new and with the discovery of new ones that have different properties as far as their effects makes it hard to say for certain ok all sarms are good is this specific situation.
I almost dont even think it is smart to look at them as SARMS. I think the most prudent approach is to look at each one individually as an anabolic, see what properties each one has, and pick an appropriate use accordingly.
For example LGD 4033 is very suppressive & it is bad for cholesterol. It is, however, very mild on the prostate and the liver, and it is also very anabolic. Now a compound like that which is pretty potent but very suppressive should obviously be run with a test base. It should also probably not be run long term per se as it really does do a number on your cholesterol (or at least you need be aware of this and diet and supplement accordingly when using it).
Now Osta on the other hand is supressive in a dose dependent manner but with our doses suppression will always occur, so it needs a test base. That being said it is very safe in almost every other area as far as adverse sides go so it probably could be run longer term. Its like LGD is like anadrol and osta is like anavar.
In other words I say look at each one individually and then figure out where it can best be used and fit in to our cycles.

[Mr I]

StanG seems the man in SARMS

I never knew all that

[jack tors]

I appreciate all the feedback. I might have to run a log and see what this is all really about. Here is the way I see it:

You have 2 guys running 500 mg of test E a week. One guy wants to add a compound like deca to increase gains a little bit. We all know how effective that is. The other guy wants to add lets say Ostarine instead of a compound cause his blood pressure got higher on test and doesnt want to risk increasing it anymore but still wants a little more gains, but now the recommendation is not to because of a receptor site issue. It just doesnt make sense that the addition of deca wont cause a battle for receptor sites but ostarine would. UNLESS sarms have a greater affinity for binding to receptors than AAS. The thing is I cant find anything that states this in the literature. If that were true it would make perfect sense, so basically I'm trying to find out if this is the case or if it is just broscience saying not to.

The idea that it should just be saved for off cycle gains is almost the same as saying creatine should be saved for off cycle because you wanna save it for when you arent getting that extra help. (i know its not exactly the same, but you get my point)

The smaller cycle duration hasnt been addressed for sarms either. Does anyone know the answer to that one?

I understand that AAS are always going to be more effective than SARMS, but I just can't seem to find legitimate research that states it wouldn't be an added benefit to a cycle if stacked together. Instead I am just finding opinions and guesses. I probably will just have to try it and report back.

Any additional input would be greatly appreciated guys. Thanks for taking your time to participate.

Personal experience-
just started my Test P/Test E/Mast E cycle. I was running ostarine prior (4weeks) to the cycle and I decided to let them overlap until I ran out of ostarine (2 weeks). I ran the ostarine with the test cycle and immediately noticed ridiculous energy and strength gains. I loved it. I only stopped so I could reserve the SARMS as a bridge while "off". After running out of the ostarine I felt I lost the crazy strength it gave with Test. Don't get me wrong I still feel awesome on the test cycle just not as dramatic.

[Mr I]

Wow

[epix00]

Well I guess this is settled. Dudes on other forums make horrible reccomendations. Time to do a detailed log of sarms on cycle. Be on the lookout guys. Ordering supplies now.

[Mr I]

Well I guess this is settled. Dudes on other forums make horrible reccomendations. Time to do a detailed log of sarms on cycle. Be on the lookout guys. Ordering supplies now.

Good stuff, frankly whatever jack tors says is gospel in my book he's the real deal

[Turbo3000]

Chemically, it doesn't make sense.

Test is the best. It would be like filling your Ferrari up with race gas, but squirting some 50 octane just to see what happens. SARMS would be competing for your test receptors with less potency. Decreased log term sides? Maybe. The SARMs don't aromatize, which is cool, but not at a great enough benefit. Maybe if you just wanted to avoid exogenous testosterone use......


Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs) as Function Promoting Therapies
At the doses that have been tested, the first generation SARMs induce modest gains in lean body mass in healthy volunteers, which are nowhere near the much greater gains in skeletal muscle mass reported with supraphysiological doses of testosterone

[StanG]

^^ there is no receptor competition Turbo, none at all. In the presence of excess androgens the life span of androgen receptors nearly doubles as does the rate of production of new androgen receptors.
There is no static number of androgen receptors. The number is always changing and you are always using new receptors. Hell the lifespan of an androgen receptor is only like 3 hrs an it doubles to 6 when excess androgens are present.
Receptor competition is a myth.

[Bouncer]

I think I would like to see some studies here if anyone has any. Stan do you know that as fact?