In general, there are two camps of individuals who have polar opposite views on the promise of SARMs.
One camp views them as weak alternatives to Steroids with just as many side effects.
The other camp hypes SARMs up as compounds that are nearly as effective (or just as effective) as Steroids, but with far less severe side effects.
There are very few individuals who can not only acknowledge the shortcomings of the current SARMs in development, but also open their mind up to the blatant therapeutic promise of these anabolic agents.
Of all of the SARMs that have been discovered to date, there are a handful that have been tested on humans in clinical trials.
These SARMs include Ostarine, LGD-4033, GSK2881078 and PF-06260414.
Contrary to popular belief, there were in fact reported side effects of SARMs in human trials.
I elaborated on these in detail in the article “Are SARMs Side Effect-Free?“.
Without being redundant by copy and pasting the article a second time into this post, I have gone ahead and broken that post into subsections for you below (click the section you would like to read about in the content breakdown below):
- Two Sides of the SARMs Side Effect Argument
- The Misinterpretation Of SARMs Studies
- MENT And Trenbolone Have SARM-Like Actions
- The Two Polar Opposite Arguments For And Against SARMs
- Side Effects Of SARMs Currently In Clinical Trials
- Interpreting The Data – SARMs Vs Anabolic Steroids
- Are SARMs Safer Than Steroids?
- Are SARMs Side Effect Free? – The Bottom Line
If you want to watch the post in video format, you can view it below.
Alternatively, the audio/podcast version of this post will be available on all of my podcast platforms and will also be featured on the top of this article.