Real ostarine

After reading some wonderful reviews on SARMs, I decided to give them a try.

In my opinion Ostarine would be the most suitable compound. I ordered myself some API (raw powder) and asked my buddy if he would punch me some tablets. So I started to search for the best dose.

I know that the doses used in medical studies are mostly very low. And that is partly because in those studies are made to treat certain medical conditions and bodybuilders and other iron warriors want to use it for off label reasons. That why I mostly try to find logs that describe the effects and side effects of certain doses on the different discussion forums.

While I was reading the various threads, the uncomfortable feeling came over me that I also always had when I read opinions about anabolic steroids. Some guys were raving Ostarine like it transformed them overnight and improved their libido, strength and overall wellbeing like nothing else. I’m part of this business long enough to make me wonder if they sell this stuff or are part of the UG lab that sells these (mostly liquid) bottles.

Others reply like: “It doesn’t work for me” or “useless.” These kind of comment make me wonder like. What doesn’t work? Did you maybe swallow an asperin or another placebo? Did you take a dose high enough to serve any effect?

I realized that I bought API from a supplier that I trusted, but he had to source this SARM himself because he didn’t manufactured it himself.

To know for sure if Ostarine worked for me I needed to know for sure that it was real Ostarine and pure Ostarine. So what were all these logs and threads really worth?

Mario Thevis and his colleague’s from the Wada-accredited test laboratory at the German Sports University in Cologne, must have asked themselves the same question.

They bought three compounds online and found that all compounds were heavily underdosed.

Whenever a certain name or compound is hot, bodybuilding supplement companies start to use that name to sell something they promise to be close to the real compound. In this case the term SARM is misused by MHP.

"SARM-X is the first of a new class of designer androgenic / anabolic steroid memetic compounds." And.. "It is the most advanced legal over-the-counter compound available anywhere." Analysis showed SARM-X contained Trans-4-hydroxy-3-methoxycinnamic acid which is a compound present in ordinary food. It's a phenol that is found in whole grains like brown rice, oatmeal and lots more plant products. It also goes by the name of ferulic acid.

More on Purity and Dosage

Thevis buys some bottles of S4, he writes in Drug Testing & Analysis, They contain 30 ml of an oily fluid. One ml of the substance contains 150 mg S4. While it should contain only 50mg/ml.

But..the product that Thevis tested was not pure. Each ml also contained 15 mg of a compound that is produced when S4 is synthesised, and which the manufacturer should have purified out of the preparation. The structural formula of the contaminant is shown here.

If you surf the net you’ll read much (sometimes conflicting) information on SARMs in general and Ostarine specifically. There is so much new information and bloodwork that soon I’ll post a new blogpost on Ostarine with the analyses on my sample included of course.

What are SARM’s (SRM’s)

Simply put, any drug or compound that can block and/or stimulate these nuclear hormone receptors selectively, is known as a selective receptor modulator. SARMS are capable of this method of blocking / stimulating a receptor in a tissue-specific manner, which allows it to mimic the effects of traditional steroids and prohormones, without the unwanted effects in other tissues (secondary and sex organs).

The appeal of these SARMs, which are relatively new to the bodybuilding and fitness industry, are just that, that they provide the benefits of traditional anabolic steroids, such as increased testosterone, increased muscle mass, fat loss, and bone density, all the while, offering a much lower capacity to produce the traditional unwanted side effects that come with anabolic steroid use.

Because of their ability to facilitate such desirable results, they’re viewed as a new, unique class of compounds that are currently undergoing extensive investigation, research, and development from a number of pharmaceutical and sports supplement companies.

SARMs vs. Anabolic Steroids

Traditionally, steroids have been prescribed for two specific reasons; to fight muscle-wasting diseases (cancer, osteoporosis, etc.) and for hormone replacement therapy. For those who have taken steroids or prohormones in the past, you’re familiar with the common side effects associated with them, which include, but are not limited to:

Gynecomastia (male breast development) Liver toxicity Testosterone suppression Cholesterol imbalances Body hair growth Acne; and Stimulation for prostate cancer.

This partial list aside, there’s also the concern of injection, fear of needle use, and an overall lack of knowledge as it relates to proper dosing, liver protection, post-cycle therapy, and legality protocols.

The primary difference, as it relates to SARMs, is that they’re designed to stimulate a receptor in a tissue-selective manner (bone, injury repair and muscles, specifically).

By doing this, it’s possible to mimic the beneficial effects of anabolic steroids to the muscle and bone tissues, while minimizing / eliminating unwanted effects to other major tissue

Study:

The first study that opened they eyes of athletes, was a study of 12 weeks of 3 mg ostarine daily on 120 healthy elderly men and postmenopausal women In 3 mg doses ostarine boosted lean body mass by 1.4 kg. That was a statistically significant effect. Especially if we consider that the study was performed on elderly people that didn’t took supplements, worked-out or dieted.

In addition, ostarine boosted the power that the subjects developed on a stair-climber. The subjects in the trial didn't do any power training either.

The fat mass in the 3 mg group also declined slightly, by 300 g. And that was statistically significant too, seen previous arguments.

Doctors hope that SARMs don't suppress the body's own testosterone synthesis in men. which only shows data on the men in the study – it appeared in the study that ostarine does do this a little. A very little.

Ostarine lowers the level of 'good' cholesterol, HDL. That effect is not very strong either Ostarine lowers the level of 'good' cholesterol, HDL. That effect is not very strong either, but in a discussion on Dalton's study two German specialists express their concern: "The HDL decrease is still of some concern as this is a proof that there are still unwanted side and not tissue-selective effects of this novel non-steroidal selective androgen modulator", they write.

It seems likely that ostarine, like 17alpha-methyl steroids, causes some amount of liver damage. In Dalton's study, the concentration of the enzyme alanine-aminotransferase [ALT] rose in twenty percent of the subjects. A high ALT level can indicate liver damage. But exercise and high protein diet can elevate it too, Beside bodybuilders are used to have high liver enzymes and are mostly using supplements like milk thistle and Liv52.

Dubois et al 2015:

“Androgens increase skeletal muscle mass, but their clinical use is hampered by lack of tissue selectivity and subsequent side-effects. Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) elicit muscle-anabolic effects while only sparingly affecting reproductive tissues. The SARM GTx-024 (enobosarm) is being investigated for cancer cachexia, sarcopenia, and muscle wasting diseases.

In this study we investigated the role of muscle androgen receptor (AR) in the anabolic effect of GTx-024. In mice lacking AR in the satellite cell lineage (satARKO), the weight of the androgen-sensitive levator ani muscle was lower, but decreased further upon orchidectomy. GTx-024 was as effective as dihydrotestosterone (DHT) in restoring levator ani weights to sham levels. Expression of the muscle-specific androgen-responsive genes S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase and myostatin was decreased by orchidectomy (castration) and restored by GTx-024 and DHT in control mice, while expression was low and unaffected by androgen status in satARKO. In contrast, insulin-like growth factor IEa expression was not different between satARKO and control muscle, decreased upon castration, and was restored by DHT and GTx-024 in both genotypes. These data indicate that GTx-024 does not selectively modulate AR in the satellite cell lineage and that cells outside this lineage remain androgen-responsive in satARKO muscle. Indeed, residual AR positive cells were present in satARKO muscle, coexpressing the fibroblast-lineage marker vimentin. AR positive, muscle-resident fibroblasts could therefore be involved in the indirect effects of androgens on muscle. In conclusion, both DHT and GTx-024 target AR pathways in the satellite cell lineage, but cells outside this lineage also contribute to the anabolic effects of androgens.” And..

“Hence, our data suggest that GTx-024 action is both direct via muscle AR and indirect via non-muscle AR pathways, just as for other androgens.