Bone density / muscle hypertrophy

Foreigner

Foreigner

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
8,290
I'm late 30s/male. It's time that I admit I just want to get big, but I also found out that due to years of corticosteroid use, I still have osteoporosis in my lumbar spine. Now that the causes for that have been fixed in my life, I really have an opportunity to fix it. I've been going to the gym 4-5 days a week doing moderate to heavy lifting for a year now. I'm 6'4" and 195lbs at about 8% body fat right now. I saw a personal trainer who got me on the right track. I would say I'm medium build right now. I want to get bigger but I have plateaued in my weightlifting, it seems.

A friend gave me a SARM to try but in the midst of researching its benefits/risks, he called me to say that he experienced hardcore T suppression and now he has to take a SERM to recover. He is dealing with fatigue, low energy, loss of libido, and anxiety/depression, not to mention loss of everything he gained while on the SARM. So I'm thinking... no thanks.

I do want to be bigger though. This isn't a long-term plan, I don't plan to be bigger forever. I'd just like to be able to increase my weight class and maximize bone density increases to get me out of the osteoporosis zone. If I can progress to osteopenia instead, I can back off of the performance enhancement and just continue with a regular routine. The SARM that I was looking at increases bone density two to three times faster than normal. I don't plan to take a SARM, but because SARMs work on the T receptors, I'm assuming this means I should just do T and hcg cycles instead.

I'm currently taking DHEA and pregnenolone but they're not doing what I'm looking for. They increase my recovery speed and there are hypothetical bone density increases, but they're not rapid and you have to deal with possible E spillover which is annoying. The T increases have been modest and, although I don't suffer from estrogen issues, there's too high a risk of conversion to E which I'm not interested in (although, E is good for bone density).

Some experienced advice would be appreciated, especially from a harm reduction angle. I'm going to do this no matter what so I'd like the best info possible. If this is a UTFSE situation then please just paste some links and I'll read stuff on my own. All the bodybuilding forums I've read just say to not bother with gimmicks and do T/hcg. Like I said, this is a short-term plan (6 months or less). Cheers.
 
Heavy lifting is known to increase bone density, to compliment that action make sure you derive adequate nutrition from whole foods, keep protein relatively high, enough Vitamin D3, Vitamin K2, Calcium rich foods (but dont supplement), healthy levels of testosterone, so there is normal levels of conversion to estrogen (estrogen modulates osteoclast and osteoblast precursors) hence modulates bone density..
I'm not really a fan of hCG, testosterone therapy works for some people if natural levels are very low..
 
Genetic Freak said:
Heavy lifting is known to increase bone density, to compliment that action make sure you derive adequate nutrition from whole foods, keep protein relatively high, enough Vitamin D3, Vitamin K2, Calcium rich foods (but dont supplement), healthy levels of testosterone, so there is normal levels of conversion to estrogen (estrogen modulates osteoclast and osteoblast precursors) hence modulates bone density..
I'm not really a fan of hCG, testosterone therapy works for some people if natural levels are very low..
Click to expand...

I've already been doing all that and my bone density didn't improve at all within a year. That's why I'm pursuing going on cycle in the first place, otherwise I wouldn't bother.
 
I'm assuming you looked at the profile of ostarine? I believe in the true therapeutic range it shouldn't suppress you (single digit milligrams) and showed promise in women with bone less (not much in the field of men here).
If hormones are what you'd want to go with, true trt would do the job as well as you mentioned you are late 30s and may potentially be declining hormonally.
Long term load bearing can help with lumbar spine bone growth (we see it in our athletes that are underweight but not engaging in load bearing sports such as cross country runners at my uni here so we suggest finding ways to load the spine in a safe way like heavy backpack walks, hiking with a pack, etc basically getting time with lumbar load).
 
Serotonin101 said:
I'm assuming you looked at the profile of ostarine? I believe in the true therapeutic range it shouldn't suppress you (single digit milligrams) and showed promise in women with bone less (not much in the field of men here).
If hormones are what you'd want to go with, true trt would do the job as well as you mentioned you are late 30s and may potentially be declining hormonally.
Long term load bearing can help with lumbar spine bone growth (we see it in our athletes that are underweight but not engaging in load bearing sports such as cross country runners at my uni here so we suggest finding ways to load the spine in a safe way like heavy backpack walks, hiking with a pack, etc basically getting time with lumbar load).
Click to expand...

Good suggestions. I carry a heavy backpack everywhere and I do load bearing at the gym. Unfortunately, after 1 year, there was zero change in my spine. That's why I'm looking at hormones.

Ostarine may be a better alternative than the one I was considering, which is RAD-104. RAD is much more powerful and seems to ruin people.
 
Why not just use good ol fashioned anabolics/HGH

You are 8% so you will look very good and quickly too and most likely will go down to 6-7% bodyfat
 
Conky said:
Why not just use good ol fashioned anabolics/HGH

You are 8% so you will look very good and quickly too and most likely will go down to 6-7% bodyfat
Click to expand...


I don't care about looking good... I already look good lol. I care about not having a lumbar spinal fracture and disc rupture in the next 5 years due to osteoporosis.

Anabolics/HGH. Despite what I said in the OP, I'm now circling back around to SARMs again. SARMs seem to have way stronger bone density effects than anabolics/HGH because they selectively target certain receptors. If I'm going to gamble with hormone alterations I feel like I should maximally target the effect I'm going for. RAD-140 for example is 80 times stronger than TRT for the purposes of bone density. SARMs were specifically designed to help avoid muscle wasting and bone density loss. But the come down from them seems like it can possibly be devastating. So I dunno.

I need to rescue my bones but I'm trying to figure out the best way to do it efficiently. Hormone replacement of some kind seems mandatory since not doing it got me zero bone gains in the past year. The clock is ticking. A friend wants to go backpacking this summer and I probably can't do it because the backpack would be heavy and if I slip in the wrong direction it could mean a spinal fracture.
 
garygroundwork said:
SARMS suck

might swell flush your money down the toilet
Click to expand...
Why do sarms suck? LGD-4033 (Ligandrol) under the licensed name VK5211 increased lean muscle mass by 9% in over 65 year old hip fracture patients in a Viking Therapeutics clinical trial. I think it was 6 weeks. That seems pretty good for not even exercising!
 
Sarms are a research chemical. We don't actually know the long term side effects. With AAS you know exactly what to expect, whether good or bad as there's a lot more studies and research since they ( for the most part) are used and approved in medecine.

Rad 140 will supress the fuck out of your natural test production. Not worth the risk for such small benefits especially without a test base. I've made the same mistake myself lol.

I can share my mobility, stretches and stabilty exercises that helped me prevent and even recover from my hearniated disc if you'd like. It helped me quite a bit as I can finally deadlift and squat heavy again.

Edit: You seem to already be aware but cortisone injections are terrible for your health and can induce osteoporosis.
 
Last edited:
Electrum1 said:
Why do sarms suck? LGD-4033 (Ligandrol) under the licensed name VK5211 increased lean muscle mass by 9% in over 65 year old hip fracture patients in a Viking Therapeutics clinical trial. I think it was 6 weeks. That seems pretty good for not even exercising!
Click to expand...

Long-term effects unknown. Possible permanent down-regulation (based on anecdotal reporting, but there are many of these reports) that is unrecoverable by simply stopping.

There are dozens of substances that target androgen receptors, but they all have different potential long-term impacts. SARMS have not been studied long-term.

Plus... if you haven't even tried using testosterone first, you are not availing yourself of a much more natural, manageable way to build muscle. Most people lose the gains they made from SARMs as soon as they stop them.
 
Foreigner said:
Long-term effects unknown. Possible permanent down-regulation (based on anecdotal reporting, but there are many of these reports) that is unrecoverable by simply stopping.

There are dozens of substances that target androgen receptors, but they all have different potential long-term impacts. SARMS have not been studied long-term.

Plus... if you haven't even tried using testosterone first, you are not availing yourself of a much more natural, manageable way to build muscle. Most people lose the gains they made from SARMs as soon as they stop them.
Click to expand...

All the negatives you listed can and have happened to people using steroids.
The big difference between SARMs and steroids is that we do not have long term or large scale data yet.

IMHO, SARMs can be ok for women since they can get significant results with dosages that have been tested in the trials.

As a man, you have to take much more (10x to 40x) than that, and that makes it not worth it in my eyes.
 
Before you turn to anabolics you should make sure your program is on point. You should be able to progress for a long time without drugs using progressive overload

I've been lifting regularly for 7 years now and this planning blows through any plateau, I'm using the rp hypertrophy app which does all the planning for you its honestly amazing

rpstrength.com

RP Strength

At RP Strength, formulas, calculations, and literature reviews replace gurus, hunches, and attachments to tradition. We know what works and we want to help you reach your goals.
rpstrength.com rpstrength.com

 
Phobos said:
All the negatives you listed can and have happened to people using steroids.
The big difference between SARMs and steroids is that we do not have long term or large scale data yet.
Click to expand...

Depends on which steroid you're talking about. Some steroids were specifically crafted for human conditions, i.e. bone marrow repletion, bone density repair, anti-cachexia in the case of HIV/AIDS, etc. Anavar and Primobolan come to mind. Others, like trenbolone, were not made for humans or have not had adequate human testing so there are risks. Fortunately, the more hardcore steroids are used more by competitive bodybuilders and not your average gym hobbiest.

SARMs, conversely, are largely experimental, don't have natural analogs, and the effects can vary from mildly uncomfortable to randomly haphazard. To me they are sort of like the anabolic version of research chemicals in the psychedelic/tripping world. We all know what LSD is, it is tested and true, but we don't know what all those other RCs are -- but hey, you could try them and find out I guess.

Phobos said:
IMHO, SARMs can be ok for women since they can get significant results with dosages that have been tested in the trials.
Click to expand...

If the trials say so. I think SARM research was mostly prompted by an unmet demand for women's health care anyway. Women can't really touch traditional anabolics and stay feminine, for the most part.

Phobos said:
As a man, you have to take much more (10x to 40x) than that, and that makes it not worth it in my eyes.
Click to expand...

They're also just... not necessary. Why would you take random substances that stimulates androgen (and other) receptors in indeterminate ways when you can just stick to testosterone, which the body can naturally process, as well as testosterone analogs which have long-term clinical trials. Hell, even the stuff that doesn't have clinical trials, at least it is molecularly similar to T so hypothetically manageable.

Not to mention, SARMs cause gonadal suppression anyway, so if you really want to work them as a longer term project + keep your gains you need to be on TRT anyway. And if you're going to go the suppression route, then why not just go all the way and use more known anabolics? That's what I'm not understanding.
 
Foreigner said:
Possible permanent down-regulation (based on anecdotal reporting, but there are many of these reports) that is unrecoverable by simply stopping.
Click to expand...
This was the part that I meant to say any steroid can do to you as well.
Foreigner said:
They're also just... not necessary. Why would you take random substances that stimulates androgen (and other) receptors in indeterminate ways when you can just stick to testosterone, which the body can naturally process, as well as testosterone analogs which have long-term clinical trials. Hell, even the stuff that doesn't have clinical trials, at least it is molecularly similar to T so hypothetically manageable.

Not to mention, SARMs cause gonadal suppression anyway, so if you really want to work them as a longer term project + keep your gains you need to be on TRT anyway. And if you're going to go the suppression route, then why not just go all the way and use more known anabolics? That's what I'm not understanding.
Click to expand...

Yep, we pretty much agree on the whole thing.
I could easily buy SARMs but here I am sticking Testosterone in me with a needle.

Some people use SARMs because they are legal to buy and possess and they are afraid of getting in legal trouble with AAS, or because the simple fact that they would be making their purchase from a "dodgy scary dealer" in the case of steroids as opposed to a legit shop in the case of SARMs.
Joke's on them in that case as they are more likely to get scammed when buying SARMs then when buying gear.
 
Honestly if you've only been lifting for a year drugs are not the way to go, you shouldn't be hitting your natural limits even 10 years in if you plan correctly. Adding in drugs is adding extra risk of harm for no good reason and should only be considered after you've been lifting for quite some time IMO


 
Phobos said:
This was the part that I meant to say any steroid can do to you as well.
Click to expand...

No. As I said, it depends on the steroid.

Suppression and permanent down-regulation are two different things. Related but not the same.

You can have suppression and fully recover. If you have permanent down-regulation it means that homeostasis has been destroyed.

Phobos said:
Yep, we pretty much agree on the whole thing.
I could easily buy SARMs but here I am sticking Testosterone in me with a needle.
Click to expand...

Great, I support that over SARMs.

Phobos said:
Some people use SARMs because they are legal to buy and possess and they are afraid of getting in legal trouble with AAS, or because the simple fact that they would be making their purchase from a "dodgy scary dealer" in the case of steroids as opposed to a legit shop in the case of SARMs.
Joke's on them in that case as they are more likely to get scammed when buying SARMs then when buying gear.
Click to expand...

SARMs can be botched too, and as they are orals they will likely have liver impacts due to first pass metabolism (all anabolic orals do that eventually). AFAIK, in most western countries it is criminal to possess anabolics for personal use. I see your point about legalities though.
 
Foreigner said:
SARMs can be botched too, and as they are orals they will likely have liver impacts due to first pass metabolism (all anabolic orals do that eventually). AFAIK, in most western countries it is criminal to possess anabolics for personal use. I see your point about legalities though.
Click to expand...
In my personal experience SARMs are bad quality more often than steroids.
With steroids potency has not varied between various batches and different underground labs, only the amount of irritation and pain, which is caused by the amount of BB and BA in the vial.

With SARMs, potency has varied from one batch to another, and when buying raws I've had the same company ship me fine looking dry white powder with good potency a few times as well as a very dodgy looking smelly and wet dark brown paste.
Again, this is just my personal experience but based on that I would say that SARMs have more quality issues.
 
That company I mentioned, Viking Therapeutics, shelved their SARM VK5211 after phase 2 trials even though it had great data, so there could definitely be something they're not saying like issues of consistency in manufacturing or whatever

They went towards NASH/NAFLD instead because there's way more potential money in fatty liver drugs, but I still suspect there's something they aren't telling us about that SARM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top