Any lipid experts here?


SARMs are steroid workarounds, they’re not for cholesterol at all, they’re also comically more expensive and less safe than actual Anabolics. On cholesterol, they actually make it must worse. Definitely also not for long term never ending meds or side effects.

(Bob M) #22

Here’s one study for statins. No mortality benefit. If 100 people take statins for 2.5 years, 99 will not receive a benefit. One will avoid a MACE.

For trials between about 2 and 6 years, “The median postponement of death for primary and secondary prevention trials were 3.2 and 4.1 days, respectively.” (Primary = you don’t have heart disease; secondary = you do have heart disease.)

Pcsk9i aren’t as great as hoped:

Hate to keep beating the CAC score drum, but here’s yet another study indicating CAC scores of zero indicate low risk:

(jr bob dobbs) #23

Understood and agree, but most of the mentions of Cardarine / GW-501516 I see online list it as a SARM.


Yup, lots of things sold alongside SARMs get called SARMs, for what reason I have no idea. It’s a PPAR Agonist, if you look into it, it’s pretty apparent it was tanked on purpose. It’s VERY good at it’s original purpose of reversing metabolic disease and fixing cholesterol. A couple years ago the company that holds the patent to it starting working on it again, there’s a newer version of it out already (GW0742) but most stick with the old one since “research” or not, it’s proven itself a million times over at this point.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #25

After all, it’s not as though two million years of eating meat did anything to help the body figure out how to manage itself without strict supervision!

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #26


The work of Ravnskov and Diamond shows how the particles get in from the vasa vasorum, not from the blood in the lumen. This makes a great deal of sense, because it explains away the need for the particles to pass all the way through the thickness of the intima to get to the outside.