Bump, I have no idea what they do. Am interested

SARMs are my shit senpai. They're like synthetic versions of steroids. They raise test, increase libido, and strength.

The downside is the time it takes to kick in, and isn't as potent as steroids.

The upside is, shitty to moderate drug tests can't catch it, only Olympic grade tests can. Overall it's pretty great, people who do roids take sarms on their off cycle

>>37445007
Really, are they worth it? Do they shut down your balls like roids?

How serious is the prospect of testicular atrophy and other steroidal side effects.
Do you typically run cycles for 4 weeks. How can you mitigate these effects.
It kinda seems like that there is contradictory info. They say SARMs are non steroidal and don't have serious sides and won't cause liver damage. Nor the other liver issues. But there are warnings of the same sides as steroids.
So I'm not sure what exactly to believe
Can anyone inform me more.

There also seems to be a mix of orals vs injected forms of SARMs. Are orals more harmful. Or are the injections safer.
I also see there are numerous varieties with different effects. What can be explained on them from someone with experience?

Pls

bump for interest

SARMS are too new and undocumented. They apparently give you gains but nobody knows all the side effects of the drugs yet. It's safer to stick with test, but if you don't give a fuck about your organs and only about your aesthetics/strength SARMs may be worth trying out.

there are so many "companies" selling shit right now trying to make a quick buck makes finding real stuff way harder

>>37447362
This.
Stick to test. The gains are not worth beeing a labrat.

>>37444906
>look mom i posted it again!

>>37446919
orals will always be worse for you.

did a few cycles of sarms. woudlnt recommend. did have testicular atrophy as well.