So, guys, Derek, more plates, more dates.com.

Today we're gonna be talking briefly about SARMs and are they side effect free after all.

So, you know, there's a lot of hype and there is a lot of naysayers.

There are basically people on either one end of the spectrum or other.

People who think SARMs suck and have just as bad side effects as gear and they're useless.

And then there's people who are like huge proponents of SARMs and basically hype them up as

side effect free steroid alternatives that are just as effective at high enough dosages.

And it's just like this is the real middle ground

right here. SARMs bind with a high affinity of the AR and do transcribe tissue selective

anabolic effects and muscle tissue and they do work. The thing is though they're not side

effect free whatsoever and And in fact,

when you actually get into the data of what is a SARM to begin with, something that is a selective

androgen receptor modulator is a misleading category almost because at the end of the day, the reference androgen that's being

used in all of this data when they're assessing what is tissue selective is testosterone.

So as you probably know, testosterone is not tissue selective at all.

It's 5 alpha reduced into a far more

endogenic metabolite dh T, and it is seen in the community or the medical community as a subpar

treatment for musculoskeletal degenerative disease. And, you know, like old age, you know, know cancer anything that has to do with bone or muscle wasting it's seen as a subpar treatment due to its inherent androgenicity so a selective androgen receptor modulator literally something that is selective is

categorized as selective in clinical data based on if it has a

better androgen index than testosterone, which is not that good necessarily.

So if you have something that's a bit more tissue selective than testosterone, that doesn't mean it's free of endrogenicity. If you actually

look at clinical data, you'll see things like trestolone, things like Trenbolone being referred to

...