Few people in the SARMs tribe understand ” why” no SARMs has yet been approved for Human Use

The potential is easy to understand – a higher degree of Tissue Selectively than Steroidal SARMs

The reality is very different

Muscle wasting and decreased physical activity present an unmet need in clinical situations despite the fact that there are several candidate drugs under investigation for these diseases.

Testosterone has anabolic and functional effects both in rodent models and in clinical settings in Humans

Among other candidates, the SARM compound Ostarine increased muscle weights in phase III clinical studies in patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma cachexia but the drug failed testing and was discontinued for this application because of the results of a step-ladder test, which is one of the functional recovery tests of muscle in patients with cancer cachexia.

Regardless of the physical function test used, thresholds of clinically meaningful change have been established. A minimally clinically meaningful change in physical function is a 5 {2658607c068490114260e14c260e6ae174f4b10b752c604f4a58b348bf83bb16} increase from baseline and a substantial clinically meaningful change is a 10 {2658607c068490114260e14c260e6ae174f4b10b752c604f4a58b348bf83bb16} increase from baseline.

Here we can see how this SARM again did well in increases in Muscle Size, but failed to restore ” functional performance” to precastrated levels as we know Testosterone does

 

Black line is ” intact” Rats – not castrated
Blue line is ” Testosterone Treated”
Red line is SARMs
Grey Line is castrated

Again the question – so why didnt they just use ” more”

The drug would have passed the test and they would be making money now… right ?

Ah no SARM are only more tissue selective that Steroids at dosages so low that they fail to pass Physical Function tests

Victor Black

Please share this post

Leave A Reply

Wishlist Member WooCommerce Plus - Sell Your Membership Products With WooCommerce The Right Way .