Serious Situation is still pretty fucked (33 Viewers)

[looksmin]

Don’t need an ai at 300mg test

Saying rad140 is a partial agonist even tho that’s why it’s a sarm, because it’s selective to bone and muscle ar

Saying ur using test for estrogen amplification as if ur letting ur e2 rise high enough for that amplification


JFLLL

tbh it all depends on person to person for using an Ai with 300mg test, some people are fine with 700mg+ weekly.

 

[MedSlayer]

Yeah dude dht give chad bones that why its nukes ur hairline so the bones have more space to grow
And also SARMS>>>> AAS
Why put a needle in ur butt like a fag when you can combine alcohol and sarms to rape your liver like a real man

 

[Syna]

Don’t need an ai at 300mg test

Saying rad140 is a partial agonist even tho that’s why it’s a sarm, because it’s selective to bone and muscle ar

Saying ur using test for estrogen amplification as if ur letting ur e2 rise high enough for that amplification


JFLLL

that's not what partial agonism means stupid fag, that's what selectivity means.

 

[atrophicpyra]

well since of today halo grows bones, dht too, and enclo + rad 140 = psl

Dht doesn’t grow bones as far as we know we r both wrong though btw

Halo probably does due to being test derived but dht molecule similarity and characteristics

Enclo rad140 works

 

[atrophicpyra]

that's not what partial agonism means stupid fag, that's what selectivity means.

Why do u think sarms r selective

 

[looksmin]

anyone tryna let me join their clan to look cool

 

[FoidSlayer]

anyone tryna let me join their clan to look cool

my clan is called SLYR, wanna join?

 

[PrinceND]

OP is arguing for enclo and rad 140 as a base or some shit like that and he said DHT grows bone

High iq required to know that dht grows bones

 

[looksmin]

my clan is called SLYR, wanna join?

yesss that shit tuff

 

[Syna]

Why do u think sarms r selective

 

[looksmin]

View attachment 50101

hence the word "partial" agonism jfl he's retarded

 

[atrophicpyra]

View attachment 50101

Dude it’s a partial agonist to certain tissues

 

[atrophicpyra]

hence the word "partial" agonism jfl he's retarded

I fully support ur 300mg test e no ai if u let me touch ur boobies after

 

[Syna]

Why do u think sarms r selective

Geometric differences explanation and their relevance:

Despite SARMs having wildly different structures regarding their shape, the relevant binding interactions are still present because most SARMs preserve the correct 3D pharmacophore, as they possess the spatial arrangement of hydrophobic regions and hydrogen bonding groups needed to interact with the androgen receptors ligand binding pocket, this meaning that they will possess structures that are compatible with the AR shape despite replacing some of the functional groups and geometry present in AAS molecules but will still possess a similar and compatible geometric structure, they replace some AAS structures and functional groups with other structures and functional groups like aromatic rings like benzene, bicyclic systems, nitriles, trifluoromethyl groups, ether linkages, or heterocycles, that in theory recreates the same spatial geometry and electronic interactions needed for the bonding to occur in the AR receptor. In addition, SARMs often induce a slightly divergent conformational change and behave differently in the receptor, affecting co activator recruitment differently across tissues, and they are generally resistant to metabolism by 5α-reductase and aromatase conversion. In theory these modifications regarding their geometric structure should keep the relevant parts of the interactions for muscle growth and get rid of the rest that are causing the androgenic side effects.

Simplification: The geometric shape tweaks present on SARMs should get rid of the unwished interactions and androgenic sides of AAS preserving the key elements needed for muscle growth and still fitting the required structural criteria to bind to the AR. However, this selectivity is relative, failing the original premise of the creation of SARMs, as in practice SARMs can still produce some androgenic effects, more frequently at higher doses, this point in particular will be relevant when I disclose the rest of the cons of SARMs.

Testosterone skeletal form:

Ostarine (enobosarm, MK-2866, GTx-024):

 

[atrophicpyra]

Geometric differences explanation and their relevance:

Despite SARMs having wildly different structures regarding their shape, the relevant binding interactions are still present because most SARMs preserve the correct 3D pharmacophore, as they possess the spatial arrangement of hydrophobic regions and hydrogen bonding groups needed to interact with the androgen receptors ligand binding pocket, this meaning that they will possess structures that are compatible with the AR shape despite replacing some of the functional groups and geometry present in AAS molecules but will still possess a similar and compatible geometric structure, they replace some AAS structures and functional groups with other structures and functional groups like aromatic rings like benzene, bicyclic systems, nitriles, trifluoromethyl groups, ether linkages, or heterocycles, that in theory recreates the same spatial geometry and electronic interactions needed for the bonding to occur in the AR receptor. In addition, SARMs often induce a slightly divergent conformational change and behave differently in the receptor, affecting co activator recruitment differently across tissues, and they are generally resistant to metabolism by 5α-reductase and aromatase conversion. In theory these modifications regarding their geometric structure should keep the relevant parts of the interactions for muscle growth and get rid of the rest that are causing the androgenic side effects.

Simplification: The geometric shape tweaks present on SARMs should get rid of the unwished interactions and androgenic sides of AAS preserving the key elements needed for muscle growth and still fitting the required structural criteria to bind to the AR. However, this selectivity is relative, failing the original premise of the creation of SARMs, as in practice SARMs can still produce some androgenic effects, more frequently at higher doses, this point in particular will be relevant when I disclose the rest of the cons of SARMs.

Testosterone skeletal form:

View attachment 50102


Ostarine (enobosarm, MK-2866, GTx-024):

View attachment 50103

Dnr

Conclusion they r partial agonist to certain tissues full to others

 

[Syna]

Geometric differences explanation and their relevance:

Despite SARMs having wildly different structures regarding their shape, the relevant binding interactions are still present because most SARMs preserve the correct 3D pharmacophore, as they possess the spatial arrangement of hydrophobic regions and hydrogen bonding groups needed to interact with the androgen receptors ligand binding pocket, this meaning that they will possess structures that are compatible with the AR shape despite replacing some of the functional groups and geometry present in AAS molecules but will still possess a similar and compatible geometric structure, they replace some AAS structures and functional groups with other structures and functional groups like aromatic rings like benzene, bicyclic systems, nitriles, trifluoromethyl groups, ether linkages, or heterocycles, that in theory recreates the same spatial geometry and electronic interactions needed for the bonding to occur in the AR receptor. In addition, SARMs often induce a slightly divergent conformational change and behave differently in the receptor, affecting co activator recruitment differently across tissues, and they are generally resistant to metabolism by 5α-reductase and aromatase conversion. In theory these modifications regarding their geometric structure should keep the relevant parts of the interactions for muscle growth and get rid of the rest that are causing the androgenic side effects.

Simplification: The geometric shape tweaks present on SARMs should get rid of the unwished interactions and androgenic sides of AAS preserving the key elements needed for muscle growth and still fitting the required structural criteria to bind to the AR. However, this selectivity is relative, failing the original premise of the creation of SARMs, as in practice SARMs can still produce some androgenic effects, more frequently at higher doses, this point in particular will be relevant when I disclose the rest of the cons of SARMs.

Testosterone skeletal form:

View attachment 50102


Ostarine (enobosarm, MK-2866, GTx-024):

View attachment 50103

its because of their fucking geometric shape nigga and because they are lacking other functional groups, again partial agonism means fucking nothing like that.

 

[Syna]

Dnr

Conclusion they r partial agonist to certain tissues full to others

 

[atrophicpyra]

its because of their fucking geomtric shape nigga and because they are lacking other functional groups, again partial agonism means fucking nothing like that.

Reread what I said bro I cant type rn

 

[atrophicpyra]

View attachment 50104

Reread what I said

 

[FoidSlayer]

Geometric differences explanation and their relevance:

Despite SARMs having wildly different structures regarding their shape, the relevant binding interactions are still present because most SARMs preserve the correct 3D pharmacophore, as they possess the spatial arrangement of hydrophobic regions and hydrogen bonding groups needed to interact with the androgen receptors ligand binding pocket, this meaning that they will possess structures that are compatible with the AR shape despite replacing some of the functional groups and geometry present in AAS molecules but will still possess a similar and compatible geometric structure, they replace some AAS structures and functional groups with other structures and functional groups like aromatic rings like benzene, bicyclic systems, nitriles, trifluoromethyl groups, ether linkages, or heterocycles, that in theory recreates the same spatial geometry and electronic interactions needed for the bonding to occur in the AR receptor. In addition, SARMs often induce a slightly divergent conformational change and behave differently in the receptor, affecting co activator recruitment differently across tissues, and they are generally resistant to metabolism by 5α-reductase and aromatase conversion. In theory these modifications regarding their geometric structure should keep the relevant parts of the interactions for muscle growth and get rid of the rest that are causing the androgenic side effects.

Simplification: The geometric shape tweaks present on SARMs should get rid of the unwished interactions and androgenic sides of AAS preserving the key elements needed for muscle growth and still fitting the required structural criteria to bind to the AR. However, this selectivity is relative, failing the original premise of the creation of SARMs, as in practice SARMs can still produce some androgenic effects, more frequently at higher doses, this point in particular will be relevant when I disclose the rest of the cons of SARMs.

Testosterone skeletal form:

View attachment 50102


Ostarine (enobosarm, MK-2866, GTx-024):

View attachment 50103

dnr, i know youre right

 

[Syna]

View attachment 50104

Reread what I said bro I cant type rn

can tell you've never taken a chemistry class in your life, selectivity is not even exclusive to a biochemical process fractional distillation of petroleum is still a fucking selective process, same as when you are doing a halogenation of alkenes.

 

[atrophicpyra]

can tell you've never taken a chemistry class in your life, selectivity is not even exclusive to a biochemical process fractional distillation of petroleum is still a fucking selective process, same as when you are doing a halogenation of alkenes.

Ok so what does this mean?

Due to its shape its partial to other full to others hence why it’s selective

 

[Syna]

Dude it’s a partial agonist to certain tissues

partial agonist to the AR receptor nigger, it has a different binding replacing the functional groups of a normal AAS like test.

 

[atrophicpyra]

partial agonist to the AR receptor nigger, it has a different binding replacing the functional groups of a normal AAS like test.

Gng noo it’s too complicated I don’t even wanna argue abt it just search it up somewhere for a good 30 minutes you’ll know what u mean

Jfl at arguing abt this tho bec it is obviously SOOO much stronger than test

 

[Syna]

Ok so what does this mean?

Due to its shape its partial to other full to others hence why it’s selective

yes nigger, receptors have geometric shapes, again, ik you've never taken 1 chemistry class in your life cause you would know this.

 

[atrophicpyra]

yes nigger, receptors have geometric shapes, again, ik you've never taken 1 chemistry class in your life cause you would know this.
View attachment 50105

That’s what I have been saying they r selective and partial agonists to others full to others

 

[atrophicpyra]

yes nigger, receptors have geometric shapes, again, ik you've never taken 1 chemistry class in your life cause you would know this.
View attachment 50105

Btw what’s the point in arguing abt this jfl we all know it’s stronger than test that’s no debate

 

[Syna]

That’s what I have been saying they r selective and partial agonists to others full to others

partial agonism it's not the same as selectivity

 

[atrophicpyra]

partial agonism it's not the same as selectivity
View attachment 50106

Ok so they r selective because they partially bind to certain receptors whilst bind a lot more to certain tissues like bone and muscle

 

[Syna]

Btw what’s the point in arguing abt this jfl we all know it’s stronger than test that’s no debate

Testosterone is a full AR agonist, the muscular transcription factor of SARMs are dogshit, they also miss all the anabolism pathways needed to be superior to AAS, also, anabolism is a full system, it does not depend solely on the AR receptor, it has multiple co factors that work in synergy.

 

[Syna]

Ok so they r selective because they partially bind to certain receptors whilst bind a lot more to certain tissues like bone and muscle

Thats just not fucking true, they are related concepts but they are not the same
A ligand can be selective without being a partial agonist, a partial agonist without being selective, both and neither.

 

[atrophicpyra]

Testosterone is a full AR agonist, the muscular transcription factor of SARMs are dogshit, they also miss all the anabolism pathways needed to be superior to AAS, also, anabolism is a full system, it does not depend solely on the AR receptor, it has multiple co factors that work in synergy.

They have anticatabolic effects similar to tren and transcription of sarms r once again DOGSHIT TO CERTAIN TISSUES but for the selective ones like muscle and bone they r so goated

 

[atrophicpyra]

Thats just not fucking true, they are related concepts but they are not the same
A ligand can be selective without being a partial agonist, a partial agonist without being selective, both and neither.

it’s hard for selective ar activation so the only way u can basically get that is partial androgeny in certain tissues and full in others

 

[atrophicpyra]

it’s hard for selective ar activation so the only way u can basically get that is partial androgeny in certain tissues and full in others

hence why they still cause baldness and other efffects

 

[Syna]

hence why they still cause baldness and other efffects

so the whole premise of SARMs is a fucking failure basically jfl

the whole idea was to get rid of the androgenic sides.

 

[Syna]

They have anticatabolic effects similar to tren and transcription of sarms r once again DOGSHIT TO CERTAIN TISSUES but for the selective ones like muscle and bone they r so goated

yeah, "similar" , tren mogs SARMs when it comes to that to oblivion.

 

[atrophicpyra]

so the whole premise of SARMs is a fucking failure basically jfl

the whole idea was to get rid of the androgenic sides.

Bro who gaf abt that that’s not the reason why ppl use sarms now adays


It’s for convenience, cheap, safer, very anabolic results like dozens of lbs of lean mass in rare cases as I said abt the 185 lb to 250lb bench hyper responder

 

[Syna]

They have anticatabolic effects similar to tren and transcription of sarms r once again DOGSHIT TO CERTAIN TISSUES but for the selective ones like muscle and bone they r so goated

SARMs do fucking nothing for the bones btw.

 

[atrophicpyra]

yeah, "similar" , tren mogs SARMs when it comes to that to oblivion.

Yk Anavar tren and sarms r all anti catabolic right?

 

[Syna]

Yk Anavar tren and sarms r all anti catabolic right?

what does anavar has anything to do? yes they all affect the GR receptor in tissues.

 

[atrophicpyra]

SARMs do fucking nothing for the bones btw.

Yeah but they do smth for muscle make that make sense jfl

They said it’s targeted towards bone and muscle too btw

 

[atrophicpyra]

what does anavar has anything to do? yes they all affect the GR receptor in tissues.

That a lot of things r as catabolic as tren

 

[Syna]

Yeah but they do smth for muscle make that make sense jfl

They said it’s targeted towards bone and muscle too btw

 

[Syna]

That a lot of things r as catabolic as tren

jesus fucking christ, comparing SARMs and anavar to the anticatabolic effects of tren is insanely retarded surgerymax, you're the nigga that knows more about tren, are SARM's and anavar as catabolic....oh! nooooo

 

[atrophicpyra]

View attachment 50110

Jfl that’s ostarine r we deadass

 

[atrophicpyra]

jesus fucking christ, comparing SARMs and anavar to the anticatabolic effects of tren is insanely retarded surgerymax, you're the nigga that knows more about tren, are SARM's and anavar as catabolic....oh! nooooo

They all produce similar anticatabolic effects wtf r u on abt bro reassess

 

[Syna]

Jfl that’s ostarine r we deadass

 

[Syna]

They all produce similar anticatabolic effects wtf r u on abt bro reassess

similar does not mean equal in potency, how illiterate are you?

 

[atrophicpyra]

View attachment 50111

Weaker ones don’t do much but btw just as a reference if something increases muscle mass it increases bone mass since they r both identical in ar

 

[atrophicpyra]

similar does not mean equal in potency, how illiterate are you?

wtf I said similar not equal? Similar as in similar potency