Sarms Vs other oral AAS

I just wanted to see if anyone has any experience with taking sarms as one would generally take an oral? For instance pre loading your test cycle with Rad140 instead of Dianabol.

If so how were the results?

Is it just because sarms are much weaker/relatively less suppressive that they get taken on their own for a cycle or am I missing something about the mechanism of action that makes them different to regular orals?

If you are after the best results then AAS is the better and more cost effective option. SARMs are primarily used in situations where minimal shutdown/side-effects are desired. SARMs are not going to replace oral AAS anytime soon and they should not be viewed as an alternative, but rather as a second option.

Okay, thank you.

I'm beginning to feel like sarms are in general a bit over hyped.

john.elton wrote: Okay, thank you.

I'm beginning to feel like sarms are in general a bit over hyped.

And once you start stacking them or using higher doses they shut you down almost as much as if you'd just used tbol or winstrol.