SARMs vs Steroids: Honest Comparison for Athletes
Ostarine, RAD-140 and LGD-4033 promise steroid-like gains without liver toxicity. But how do they really compare? We dig into efficacy data, suppression risk, and which compounds suit which goals.
What Are SARMs?
Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators bind to the androgen receptor with tissue selectivity — promoting anabolic effects in muscle and bone while minimising androgenic effects on the prostate and skin. Traditional anabolic steroids bind the AR non-selectively across all tissues. The "selective" mechanism relies on inducing different conformational changes in the AR depending on which tissue's co-activators and co-repressors are present. In theory, this allows muscle building without prostate growth or scalp DHT conversion.
Efficacy: How Much Muscle Can SARMs Build?
Honest numbers based on available clinical data: Ostarine (MK-2866) at 3 mg/day produced 1.4 kg lean mass gain in 12 weeks in healthy elderly men — with zero training. With resistance training, estimates run 2–4 kg per cycle at 10–20 mg/day. RAD-140 (Testolone) showed the most impressive anabolic:androgenic ratio in animal studies (90:1 vs testosterone's 1:1), with preliminary human reports of 4–8 kg lean mass in 8 weeks at 10–20 mg/day. LGD-4033 produced 1.21 kg lean mass vs placebo in a 3-week dose-escalation study. Extrapolated to 12 weeks with training, real-world users report 3–6 kg.
Suppression: The Biggest Misunderstood Risk
SARMs suppress endogenous testosterone — some significantly. RAD-140 at 10 mg/day for 8 weeks can suppress total testosterone by 70–90% in some users. LGD-4033 suppresses more than Ostarine at equivalent doses. The suppression is dose and time dependent. Unlike traditional AAS, this suppression is generally reversible without PCT, recovering over 4–8 weeks post-cycle. However, running SARMs without monitoring bloodwork and then stacking multiple SARMs with high doses is increasingly linked to severe suppression requiring medical intervention.
Liver Toxicity: Safer Than Oral Steroids, Not Zero Risk
Unlike C17-alpha alkylated oral steroids (Dianabol, Winstrol), SARMs are not alkylated and have significantly lower hepatotoxicity. However, they are not zero. Multiple case reports document SARMs-induced drug-induced liver injury (DILI), including at least 3 published cases involving LGD-4033. The risk increases with fake or contaminated products — a 2017 JAMA study found that 52% of SARMs sold online did not match their label. Source quality is critical.
Who Should Consider SARMs vs Steroids
SARMs may be appropriate for: athletes in sports with testing who want reduced detection windows, individuals concerned about androgenic side effects (hair loss, prostate), bridging between steroid cycles, or those newer to PEDs who want a lower-risk introduction. Traditional testosterone remains superior for raw mass and strength gains, is better studied, and carries more predictable side effect profiles when managed properly. Neither should be used without health monitoring. The "safer" label attached to SARMs is relative — not absolute.
Written by
Dr. Markus Hein
Sports Nutritionist, PhD