All of your SARMS1 questions... Ask them here!!

[stormshadow101]

Re: All of your SARMS questions... Ask them here!!

Ok guys, I work in drug development so know a lot more abuot this stuff than most people.. There are things called pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, basically a ridiculously high dose in a rat does not equal the same in a human. Some drugs require very high doses in rats to achieve the same plasma levels as a much lower dose in humans. You think GSK didn't consider that the high dose in rat won't ever be used in humans? Of course not. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, but this sounds like a big NO NO in my book....and I do have experience in this field.
Not trying to tread on anybodies toes here.

 

[srfskr]

Ok guys, I work in drug development so know a lot more abuot this stuff than most people.. There are things called pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, basically a ridiculously high dose in a rat does not equal the same in a human. Some drugs require very high doses in rats to achieve the same plasma levels as a much lower dose in humans. You think GSK didn't consider that the high dose in rat won't ever be used in humans? Of course not. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, but this sounds like a big NO NO in my book....and I do have experience in this field.
Not trying to tread on anybodies toes here.

This has been discussed ad nauseum, but to query your differentiation between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, the test dosages on the rats was between 5 mg/ kg body weight up to 40mg/ kg body weight for a period of 104 weeks. In spite of plasma level differentiation, I dare say that 10mg for a 70kg person over 8 weeks is going to achieve plasma levels anywhere near the levels achieved in the rats over 104 weeks at an equivalent dose of up to 2800mg per day.

I have no doubt that given that the drug was initially targeted at genetically obese individuals, the treatment protocol envisioned was on a chronic basis for extended periods of time, if not permanently. Hence, the development of tumours over a two year treatment protocol is certainly significant and would definitely cause the drug to be shelved.

 

[stormshadow101]

Re: All of your SARMS questions... Ask them here!!

I don't know much about the study as I haven't read the paper. I'm wondering if the drug was given to obese rats or healthy rats? I get your point about it being required for a chronic condition (i.e. dosings required for life) rather than a short 'cycle' as is used here. I also agree that the plasma levels were probably similar (given the data you shared), i'd still be concerned about how this is metabolised between models and personally I wouldn't go near it given the cancer findings

 

[crazyhunter]

Re: All of your SARMS questions... Ask them here!!

that's really up to you... if its unbearable then yes... it does not sound like that is the case so I would hold off for going 5 on 2 off for now...

Thanks Dylan

 

[dylangemelli]

This has been discussed ad nauseum, but to query your differentiation between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, the test dosages on the rats was between 5 mg/ kg body weight up to 40mg/ kg body weight for a period of 104 weeks. In spite of plasma level differentiation, I dare say that 10mg for a 70kg person over 8 weeks is going to achieve plasma levels anywhere near the levels achieved in the rats over 104 weeks at an equivalent dose of up to 2800mg per day.

I have no doubt that given that the drug was initially targeted at genetically obese individuals, the treatment protocol envisioned was on a chronic basis for extended periods of time, if not permanently. Hence, the development of tumours over a two year treatment protocol is certainly significant and would definitely cause the drug to be shelved.

Well said bro

 

[dylangemelli]

Thanks Dylan

Anytime bro

 

[srfskr]

Well said bro

Cheers mate

 

[srfskr]

I don't know much about the study as I haven't read the paper. I'm wondering if the drug was given to obese rats or healthy rats? I get your point about it being required for a chronic condition (i.e. dosings required for life) rather than a short 'cycle' as is used here. I also agree that the plasma levels were probably similar (given the data you shared), i'd still be concerned about how this is metabolised between models and personally I wouldn't go near it given the cancer findings

I hear you mate - we're all free to choose our protocols. The great thing about the EF Forum is everyone is encouraged to air their views in order for us to all make informed choices. The more info out there, the better for all users I guess.

 

[dylangemelli]

Re: All of your SARMS questions... Ask them here!!

First of all, thanks for the input. I'm peppering you with questions because I'm trying to do a little planning for the next year.

Please compare and contrast these two cycles:

wk 1-10 test blend @ 250 mg/week
wk 1-10 500 units of HCG / week (48 hours before shoot day)
wk 6-10 40-60 mg of Anavar per day

Versus

wk 1-10 50 mg/day S4
wk 1-10 25 mg/day Osta
wk 1-20 20 mg/day GW
wk 1-20 500 units/week HCG

And if the testosterone cycle is still substantially more anabolic (which it may be), at what dose of test would you consider equivalent to the SARMS cycle? For example, would 175 mg/week of test and 30 mg/week of anavar be equivalent to that SARMS cycle in terms of anabolic strength? Obviously any testosterone cycle will more androgenic -- I get that part.

bro, aas are always going to be stronger than sarms... you can't compare them... sarms are used as a bridge in between cycles to help maintain gains or really cut up and prepare you for your next cycle... they are excellent but they are in no way as strong as aas and should not be compared but utilized as something to use in between...

 

[mrplunkey]

Re: All of your SARMS questions... Ask them here!!

bro, aas are always going to be stronger than sarms... you can't compare them... sarms are used as a bridge in between cycles to help maintain gains or really cut up and prepare you for your next cycle... they are excellent but they are in no way as strong as aas and should not be compared but utilized as something to use in between...

I just wondered if there was an equivalency point.

As a 45 y/o male, I'd probably see benefits from even 125 mg/week of test. I believe SARMS isn't androgenic, but in terms of anabolics/fat loss I thought there's be an AAS cycle equivalent.

If there isn't, I'll just experiment a little and see if I can build a basis for comparison.