as Elvia said, sarms are suppressive..
I have seen bloodwork to confirm
im not sure what to tell you
quote from the text i just got from my DR :
Selectivity in men
For example, if the target is bone growth in elderly men with osteopenia or osteoporosis, but with no overt signs of hypogonadism, a SARM targeting bone and muscle tissue but with lesser activity on the prostate or testes would be more desirable.
I think you have posted the wrong quote because that doesn't prove anything about SARM's not being suppressive.
this is between me and slice so why are you pestering?
I just wrote out a reply and the post didn't send. You know what I can't be bothered with idiots like you tonight so I will leave it at that.
this is between me and slice so why are you pestering?
what is between you and me? SARMs are suppressive.. this is widely known..
guys have run SARM-only cycles, compared testosterone levels before and after, and their levels were cut in half afterward.. sometimes even more.
im not looking for an argument.. much less about something that has already been proven.
I think you have posted the wrong quote because that doesn't prove anything about SARM's not being suppressive.
lol Are you serious? You're posting publicly on a public forum and think this is just between you and another user? If you want something to be that private, try to use the Private Messaging system, which is properly named. You post something on the public forum, anyone is open to comment.this is between me and slice so why are you pestering?