Go On And Doubt SARMs

The SARMs naysayers often naysay with warnings of the unknown longer-term effects of SARMs. Testosterone and steroids have decades of millions of human trials. SARMs don't even have a decade of trials and the subject pool is probably only a thousandth of that of test and steroids.

Yet the known side effects of test and steroids are so substantial that SARMs automatically seem like the better choice.

I'm thinking about all of this again this morning because I have just set lifetime personal records on all my big lifts. Again, this is as I approach my 40th birthday and after months of stagnation because my body just refused to improve like it did when I was in my early 30's.

Two weeks into my second cycle, almost on cue, and my lifts are pushing past all my old limits. I'm using a sensible dose -- just 8 mg per day for my 185-lb test mouse-- and I'm getting no signs of shutdown, no testicular pain or atrophy, no diminution of sex drive. In fact, the natural test booster I've been taking seems to have helped reverse any of those symptoms I got during my mouse's first cycle where I dosed him a little too high.

The testicles have regained the size they had been losing after the excess dosing. I'm very happy about this. Yes, SARMs -- especially the very potent LGD-4033 -- will induce shutdown because they take the place of testosterone in the muscle and bone cell androgen receptors. But if proper dosing protocols are followed (about 1 mg per 10 kg of body mass apparently), then suppression of test production seems minimal enough to be a worthwhile price to pay for the anabolic benefits.

Meanwhile, there is no acne, no hair loss, and no gynecomastia. I am now bigger and stronger than I was when I was younger and training just as hard and eating even more than I am now.

Placebo?

There are those who will say my results are due to placebo...that I'm finally just training harder or smarter than before because I expect the LGD-4033 to be having an effect on my test mouse.

I really wish that WADA and the USAPL felt the same way! Then I wouldn't have to drive to Defuniak Springs to compete in an untested fed!!

Seriously, I wonder just how much I would have to improve for the doubters to admit that LGD-4033 is roughly as good as exogenous testosterone in terms of producing growth and gains in strength.

As of this writing, it's been two months since I first dosed LGD-4033. I took a break of a few days to allow my body to correct the suppression and testicular atrophy I caused by dosing my mouse a little too high in the first six-week cycle. My squat is up an honest 50 lbs; my bench is up 40; my deadlift is up 60. These are apple-to-apple comparisons using the same form and the same type of supportive gear or lack thereof. I have put on exactly 10 lbs of bodyweight, and based on my improved strength I have to believe that is something like 80% fat-free.

Ten pounds on my body with 150 lbs on my powerlifting total using the same form and equipment. In two months. For an experienced lifter about to turn 40 whose lifts had been stagnating for a year.

Are we still saying "placebo"?

Will we still be saying that if this lifter puts on another ten pounds in another six to ten weeks, with another 150 lbs to his total using the same form and equipment?

40 is Just Four Months Away

I turn 40 years old in January. That's just four months from now. I plan to run this cycle for at least another six weeks and maybe as many as ten weeks. Then I can squeeze in at least one more cycle before my birthday.

My first cycle was six weeks. I want to get in eight weeks at least this time to give the LGD-4033 more time to work. That first cycle I dosed my poor mouse too high and I pushed the deadlift way too hard and too frequently so I had to take a backoff/deload week.

I'm feeling smarter this time and think I can keep the cycle going longer. I want to give myself enough time to hit at least a 405 x 2 high bar, beltless back squat with sleeves or very thin, loose wraps (more on using wraps in a minute). Obviously 425 x 2 high bar / no belt would be even better and I dare to hope that will happen in another six weeks. 405 x 2 is a minimum goal...but in truth, I am looking for an even 200 kg / 440 lb double if I take the cycle out to 10 weeks!

My beltless conventional pull should easily be over 500 for a double in just a couple more weeks. By the end of this cycle I will be looking for 525 - 545 for a double.

Now, if I can get another cycle in before January, then I'd like to celebrate my 40th birthday with a 500-lb high bar, beltless back squat and a 600-lb beltless conventional pull. I will have to weigh a little over 205 lbs to accomplish these lifts; For each pound of bodyweight I gain, I seem to gain a little under 5 lbs on the squat and a little over 5 lbs on the deadlift. It's about 3.5 lbs per pound of bodyweight on the bench...so I'm hoping for something just a little north of 315 for the paused bench by then.

BUT REMEMBER: "NOT AS GOOD AS ACTUAL GEAR!"

While I've just defended SARMs yet again, I kind of hope that most people will continue to doubt their efficacy in relation to actual steroids. That means I get to keep using these potent anabolics with their almost complete lack of side effects while people think my vast improvements are all because I know how to train and work really hard.

I mean...I DO know how to train and I do work really hard. But I do not kid myself that my ageing, genetically below average, happy, black ass would be all of a sudden be getting these results if it weren't for the LGD-4033.