Used correctly steroids and SARMS won’t have a lasting negative impact on your body, in fact why is injecting testosterone approved by the FDA if the risks outweigh the benefits? As well as the SARMS approved for use in all sorts of highly sensitive patient populations (HIV and Cancer victims to address muscle wasting). All of these people with negative steroids and SARM stories have one thing in common. They didn’t know how to use them correctly, they don’t have the education (on biological processes/nutrition/health) or resources to. I know several steroid users (I’m roommates with a couple) that look nearly completely natural (nearly bc they look just too good), feel amazing and look great even after their cycles end. No acne or hair loss, or high bp, because they have addressed all of these concerns correctly. But this costs money, and I think that’s where the bulk of the risk comes into play. Not the PEDs themselves, but the way in which they are used.
In the Oxford Journal of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, the popular nonsteroidal SARM LGD 4033 (Ligandrol) has been recently studied for it’s effectiveness and safety in healthy young men. Results were favorable indicated by hormone and lipid levels returning to normal without the use of a post cycle therapy. No dangers were detected throughout the study. although there was noticeable suppression in testosterone and HDL cholesterol, it was not significant enough to cause adverse reactions. Because LGD 4033 is considered one of the strongest and most potent nonsteroidal SARMs available, it is not likely that less potent SARMs will produce any harmful effects (Bhasin, 2010).