The Truth About SARMs
Q: What about SARM supplements? Are they as effective as real steroids? Is it true that they have no side effects?
A: Let's make one thing clear: SARMs are not additions. They are drugs, just like steroids. They are just another type of medication.
SARM stands for "Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator". SARMs target the same receptors as steroids (the androgen receptors), which has the same effect on protein synthesis as steroids.
Selectivity, however, makes them more muscle-oriented than other tissues. while steroids tend to affect more tissues. This lets many believe that SARM have no side effects. (They do it.)
Are they effective? For sure. If you really get something, SARMs increase protein synthesis and thus muscle growth. Are they just as effective for muscle growth as steroids? Yes and no.
Yes, they can be as effective as some steroids, but much weaker than others. And the side effects are often just as bad as taking steroids.
Let's take a look at RAD140
On milligrams per milligram basis it is almost as effective as testosterone. However, the "normal" dose is between 20 and 40 mg per day. That's 140-280 mg per week. For most people who use testosterone for muscle growth, 400-1000 mg per week is a pretty "normal" dosage, and many advanced bodybuilders use dosages in grams per week.
While RAD140 seems quite safe at a dose of 20 mg per day (there will be some water retention and blood pressure rises), you could also say that you are taking 20 mg of testosterone per day. In fact, I am willing to bet that taking 20 mg subcutaneous testosterone per day has fewer side effects than taking 20 mg RAD140 per day. If not, it is pretty much the same.
At 20 mg per day, RAD140 will not have a major influence on the inhibition of testosterone production. But 20 mg of testosterone may not have that much effect either.
If you now increase to 100-150 mg RAD140 per day, you definitely have an inhibition of your own natural testosterone production. The body works in a feedback loop, and if the androgen receptors are over-stimulated, the body will restrict the production of androgens.
I believe that SARMs are less inhibitory than steroids, mainly because most are not significantly submerged against estrogen (which may also be inhibitory), but at "the same dosage as steroids" SARMs will definitely cause inhibition.
SARMs (mostly RAD and LGD) may be on the basis of mg per mg close to testosterone, but are not as effective as many other steroids. Why? Because many steroids cause muscle growth in other ways than the androgen receptors, and SARMs do not affect these ways.
For example, Dianabol is a really weak link for the androgen receptor, but is stronger in building than testosterone to gain muscle and strength. This is mainly due to the influence of cortisol inhibition – either by reducing cortisol production or by cortisol binding. Other steroids have a similar effect.
Dianabol also has a very strong dopaminergic effect. By stimulating the dopamine receptors, you increase the activation of the CNS, which in part helps to contract your muscles more (they become stronger). Halotestin and Trenbolone have similar effects. In fact, trenbolone is really bad at boosting protein synthesis – it might even decrease protein synthesis – but it's so potent in reducing protein degradation that it leads to a net anabolic effect. This is one of the main reasons why Tren and Halo make you look harder: they lower cortisol.
It is known that cortisol causes water retention by increasing aldosterone and vasopressin. Dianabol does not have the same effect – it increases water retention – probably due to another mechanism of action: aromatization to estrogen.
SARMs do not have this effect. The more powerful SARMs like RAD140 and LGD4033 may be equivalent to milligrams-milligram-based testosterone, but they pass other steroids.
However, if you ask a bodybuilder with steroid experience, testosterone is not a great product to develop a fantastic body (except in the first cycle). Take 500 mg of testosterone alone and you will be very disappointed with the results. Take 280 mg of testosterone a week and you will not see so much in terms of extra growth (you will do it, but you will not explode with growth). 40 mg RAD140 will not give you a Mr. Olympia physique.
SARMs and side effects
It is not true that they have no side effects. They have fewer side effects related to prostate problems and blood lipid profiles, mostly because they are not converted to estrogen or DHT.
But in the same dosage as steroids they inhibit your natural testosterone production and can have a significant effect of water retention, blood pressure increase. Most problems with steroids are due to high blood pressure, a kidney killing and cardiac system.
At lower doses, SARMs have far fewer side effects than most steroids, but they take the same doses SARMs as a true steroid cycle – even with a conservative cycle of 700 mg a week – increase your side effects. Maybe not at the level of real steroids, but still important.
What About MK-667?
Although it is not a SARM – it is an orally active peptide – it is often used in the same boat because it is commercially available in the same places and is taken orally (most of the other peptides are taken by injection).
MK is by far the worst product you can take, at least in "normal" doses. It usually works by increasing growth hormone production, but it increases it too long and gives you tons of pulses over a period of 20 to 24 hours. As such, it lowers insulin sensitivity very quickly and bloat you too. They gain 10 pounds of water overnight and look like a water buffalo.
It will also boost your blood pressure and inhibit natural growth hormone production due to its extremely long-lasting effect.
The TL DR On SARMs
- It's a drug, not a supplement. Legally, it's a gray area. SARMS are not FDA approved for human use, they are marketed and sold illegally as supplements, and yes, they are banned in all collegiate and professional sports.
- Drugs have side effects and SARMs do not differ. At the normal dosages that are taken by most people, the side effects are lower than with true steroids, but also the results.
- If you increase the dose of SARM, you have steroid-like side effects, but less of an impact on the prostate and estrogen issues.
GVT and Charles Poliquin
Q: You knew Coach Poliquin pretty well, what is your honest opinion of German Volume Training? Is it really that effective? Can a natural lifter succeed?
A: I always liked the fact that Charles recommended GVT because I doubt he used it myself.
In fact, this type of workout is the exact opposite of what he likes to exercise. Charles was very scientific when it comes to training. He recorded every training session he or his athletes had ever done and carefully analyzed the data.
It's funny that Charles once said that his average biceps repeat count was 2.4 repetitions. He was a bad rep guy. I do not doubt that he probably used GVT at some point, but I doubt he used it often or for a long time.
That's why he finally modified it and developed Advanced German Volume Training. So used Charles GVT himself and with most of his athletes. There were still 10 sets of practice, but 3-5 reps per set instead of 10 reps.
But let's come back to the original GVT. Is it effective? Well, few programs have the mystique of GVT. It's been over 50 years. It was used for the first time in the off-season in the 60s by the German Olympic Lifting Team.
I would like to point out that steroids were already used by East European lifters at that time, and also by US lifters, because Doc Ziegler founded Dianabol. Soviet lifters started the testosterone injections for the 1956 Olympic Games and quickly spread to the rest of Eastern Europe.
Vince Gironda used the 10×10 system at about the same time, and it is open to debate who came up with the idea first: the Germans or Gironda. While Gironda was a strong advocate of anti-steroids (at least in public), many of the bodybuilders he trained in the 1960s used steroids. Larry Scott, Mohammed Makkawy, Rick Wayne, etc.
I'm not saying that the German volume training has worked through drugs, but it has to be taken into account when analyzing the effectiveness of the program.
If you & # 39; I have read my recent works and you believe that excessive volume is the enemy of the natural, non-genetically engineered lifter. The more volume you take, the more cortisol you release.
Using a program with too much volume could lead to lower profits for natural lifters. This is one of the reasons why a recent study yielded better results with 5 sets of 10 than 10 sets of 10. The TC Luoma report on this study can be found here: German Volume Training Fizzles Out.
Let's first look at the total volume of a GVT program to see if it's too big. In the original GVT program, you have two alternating exercises (A1, A2) for 10 sets of 10 reps. Then do two more exercises for 3 sets of 10-12 reps.
It looks something like this:
|A1||back squat||10||10  4010||90 sec.|
|A2||Lying leg Curl||10||10||90 sec|
|B1||Leg Press||3||10-12||3020||90 seconds|
|B2||Reverse Hyper||3||10-12  2010||90 sec.|
That's 200 reps with about 70% of your Maximums for the A1 / A2 part and 60-72 repetitions with 60-65% for the B1 / B2 part. A total of 260-272 repetitions for training? Is that much? You bet!
If you read the Russian Weightlifting Literature, 100 reps in a workout is a very high volume. So 272 is almost deadly high. Okay, maybe not so much, but it's a lot.
Some people can handle it. Only a few can grow optimally from this. Do not forget that if Charles had a "weakness," he worked almost exclusively with the genetic elite. He admitted that this was his shortcoming and said some of his materials needed to be adjusted.
If you work with a young athlete who is not endowed with natural testosterone, family or job, great genetics, and very little life stress, he probably can do well to benefit from GVT. But the average Joe, who of course, is older, has a busy job, etc., can not develop well with this system. If you're on drugs, you'll be fine … if boredom does not kill you.
Charles's adaptation (10 sets of 3, 4 or 5) is much better because the volume is 50-70% less. There is much less cortisol released. But if you go this way, you should be conservative with your weight selection. A set should never be more than 8/10 on the RPE scale – leave about two repetitions in the tank.
Your first few sentences could be 7/10 and the last five sentences 8/10. If you get out of hand, it will be difficult for you to recover neurologically because you either degrade dopamine or desensitize the adrenergic receptors. The next day you suffer from the hangover of the training.
Question of Strength 53
Question of Strength 52