SARMs Before and After Pictures (Typical Results)
Disclaimer: Individuals should only use SARMs for research purposes, as they are not FDA-approved and may have adverse effects. Dr. Touliatos is available for consultation should readers have any questions or concerns.
The two main questions that surround SARMs are:
- How do the results compare to steroids?
- Are they safer than steroids?
In this article, we will feature several SARMs before and after transformations, giving you anecdotal evidence of the amount of muscle mass and fat loss being experienced by users.
Contents
SARMs Before and After Transformation
This is a 5-week before-and-after picture published on Reddit that demonstrates the combined effects of:
RAD 140 and LGD-4033 are two of the most potent SARMs available today. Dr. Anthony Hughes says RAD 140 is one of the best PEDs he has come across, especially relating to performance enhancement and neurological effects. This is noteworthy considering Dr. Hughes also has vast experience with anabolic-androgenic steroids.
MK-677 is technically a growth hormone secretagogue (GHS), although it is often stacked with SARMs.
Moderate Muscle Growth
This Reddit user has clearly experienced improvements in muscle hypertrophy, with a visual gain of 10–15 pounds. However, there is an argument that a SARM cycle (like the one above) may be less potent than a typical steroid cycle.
In early human trials, researchers analyzed the effects of SARMs vs. steroids (testosterone enanthate). They found that testosterone users built 5-7 kg of lean mass, compared to just 1-1.5 kg in the SARMs group, over 4-6 weeks (1).
However, based on this user’s results, who has achieved a thicker overall look (particularly in the quadriceps), it would seem unrealistic that steroid users would experience 5x his results.
Can SARMs Increase Visceral Fat?
This user appears to have experienced a notable increase in visceral fat, creating a more bloated or protruding effect on the midsection.
We have also found visceral fat accumulation to be common among steroid users, raising estrogen levels and consequently causing insulin resistance.
SARMs are not inherently estrogenic, as the aromatase enzyme is not present; however, they do still raise estrogen levels indirectly.
The reason this female hormone can still spike is due to SARMs’ high affinity when binding to AR (androgen receptors).
Typically, our natural testosterone would bind to AR; however, SARMs have a higher binding affinity, and thus our natural testosterone production loses out. Instead, there is now more readily available testosterone that can convert to estrogen and DHT.
This can cause estrogen dominance, resulting in visceral fat storage, water retention, and gynecomastia.
DHT dominance can also lead to hair loss (on the scalp), acne, and prostate enlargement.
SARMs’ tissue selectivity aims to inhibit the above side effects; however, in reality, we still see them occur (via this indirect mechanism).
Can SARMs Stimulate Beard Growth?
Increased DHT levels from SARMs will also promote beard growth, as hair follicles are more sensitive to this androgenic hormone in comparison to testosterone (2). Such beard growth is evident in the above user, increasing the overall masculine appearance of his facial region.
Can MK-677 Cause Gut Hypertrophy?
MK-677 (Ibutamoren), one of the compounds administered in this user’s stack, can exacerbate visceral fat storage due to the increased GH (growth hormone) secretion. Growth hormone, similar to estrogen, increases blood sugar levels, causing insulin resistance and this steroid gut, or HGH gut, appearance.
Interestingly, research on rats has shown MK-677 to increase peak GH concentrations by 1.8-fold over a six-week cycle (3). However, MK-677 also decreased SST receptor (SSTR)-2 mRNA expression in the pituitary gland, consequently failing to increase the growth or size of the rodents.
Disclosure: We do not accept any form of advertising on Inside Bodybuilding. We monetize our practice via doctor consultations and carefully chosen supplement recommendations, which have given our patients excellent results.
Best SARMs Company in 2025
Sports Technology Labs

Sports Technology Labs is our recommended US source for SARMs in liquid and powder form.
They consistently formulate products with a purity level greater than 98%, authenticated via independent certificates of analysis.
Sports Technology Labs also has a no credit card fee policy, with other sources charging up to 10%.
Maximum discount code (15% off): inside15
Swiss Chems is our recommended source for SARMs in pill form. They guarantee a purity of at least 99% on all products. Swiss Chems is a US company that provides excellent stealth shipping worldwide, successfully bypassing customs. Time of arrival: 2-4 days (US), 7-10 days (worldwide). Maximum discount code (10% off): inside10Swiss Chems
SARMs Before and After Transformation: 12 Weeks
This Reddit user performed a 12-week cycle of RAD 140 (Testolone) at 17 mg/day.
He gained 5 pounds in weight; however, he ate in a small calorie surplus, thus contributing to some fat gain.
Muscular Strength
Despite experiencing minimal muscle gains, he reported significant improvements in muscular strength, which were particularly noticeable from week 6. Although all of his lifts increased drastically, he specifically reported adding 90 pounds to his flat and incline bench presses.
Can SARMs Cause Low Testosterone?
The user experienced dramatic testosterone suppression, dropping from 750 to 193 ng/dL, indicating damage to the HPTA (hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis) and hypogonadism.
Generally, we find this to be a temporary effect, with testosterone levels set to recover post-cycle (assuming no other anabolic substances are administered).
Are SARMs Toxic to the Heart and Liver?
The above user also reported AST and ALT liver enzymes being excessively high post-cycle, in conjunction with his blood lipids deteriorating. Thus, SARMs can increase the risk of heart disease or liver failure.
Such side effects, regarding liver and cardiovascular toxicity, align with what we have observed from analyzing the labs of 2,000 SARM users over a 10-year period. Consequently, Dr. Thomas O’Connor is now of the opinion that SARMs are more deleterious than steroids.
We find RAD 140’s hepatotoxicity particularly concerning, based on our patient LFTs (liver function tests) and additional medical research, with scientists diagnosing a 49-year-old male with hepatocellular-cholestatic liver injury (4). He had taken RAD 140 for 4 weeks with infrequent use afterward.
However, Dr. Rand McClain says he has observed RAD 140 users to have “better bloodwork” compared to other SARMs, including Ostarine, which he has seen have “deleterious” effects on health.
RAD 140 Authenticity
Due to the high amounts of counterfeit SARM products on the market, one could hypothesize that this user’s RAD 140 was potentially diluted or completely void of the true compound, hence his mild results.
However, given the severity of his side effects, notable strength results, and the fact that the specified manufacturer (*confidential*) has a positive reputation, this conclusion is unlikely.
Can SARMs Cause Hair Loss?
This user also mentioned an obvious loss of hair toward the latter stage of his cycle, indicating significantly higher DHT (dihydrotestosterone) levels. This is unlikely to be an issue for those using SARMs sporadically, as once a cycle ceases, hair typically thickens back to normal levels.
However, with regular SARM use, hair thinning, recession, or loss can be permanent, accelerating male pattern baldness.
SARM’s Results Compared to Steroids
The before and after pictures above are typical results from a first SARM cycle. Thus, it is evident that SARM users are hypo-responders, compared to steroid users, who are hyper-responders, in terms of muscularity and fat loss.
Novice Steroid Cycle
The before and after pictures below demonstrate typical gains from a first steroid cycle.
This YouTube user administered conservative dosages of testosterone, adding roughly 20 pounds of lean mass while also significantly reducing his body fat percentage and enhancing muscle definition.
In contrast, SARM users are likely to experience negligible reductions in subcutaneous body fat, with only small increases in muscle hypertrophy, equating to roughly 5 pounds.
These are exceptional results considering the above user only utilized testosterone instead of stacking it with other potent steroids, such as:
From Natural to SARMs
This YouTube user is natural on the left, and the picture on the right is after regular S4, Ostarine, and GH (growth hormone) cycles. Increased thickness in the back is evident, as is growth all over the body.
From SARMs to Steroids
The left photo is post-SARM use, and the right photo is post-steroid use, with Deca Durabolin and Anadrol being two steroids regularly utilized.
This shows the vast difference in potency between SARMs and steroids, with the latter being more effective at adding muscle mass.
However, Deca Durabolin and Anadrol will shut down testosterone levels, with Anadrol also causing exceptional fluctuations in cholesterol and liver enzymes due to it being a C-17 alpha-alkylated oral compound. Anadrol is also an estrogenic steroid, with water retention and gynecomastia being possible due to its direct stimulatory effect on estrogen receptors.
Anecdotal Results
The following are anecdotal reports posted by SARM users on Facebook, documenting their experiences.
I’m halfway through my first RAD 140 cycle. It definitely boosted strength; recovery time is still the same, and endurance has gone up. I’ve got everything ready to start Test E after this.
The SARMs work pretty well; what I like about them is how “keepable” the gains are. But I’ve also never had any bad side effects from any SARM except YK-11.
4 weeks in on Ostarine 10 mg, Lgd 4033 10 mg, and Mk-677 20 mg. Weight has gone up 8-10 lbs, and strength and endurance are at an all-time high for me. The only downside is that my libido is slightly lower. I’m considering upping the Ostarine and MK-677 by 10 mg for optimal gains, but I’m not sure if it’s worth it.
Conclusion
Non-steroidal SARMs are not FDA-approved, only being formulated recently (in the last 20 years), thus making them investigational compounds (5).
Therefore, anyone who takes SARMs is essentially conducting their own human trial.
It is already evident that initial claims of SARMs being safer than anabolic steroids are inaccurate, with vast anecdotal evidence of liver enzymes and blood lipids rising to high levels and diagnoses of acute myocarditis (6).
Thus, from existing research and our practical experience treating patients who have taken SARMs, we are seeing that they are just as damaging as steroids (if not more so).
We find that SARMs only mimic a portion of the muscle-building effects of steroids; thus, it could be a wiser decision to utilize a mild anabolic steroid, such as testosterone. Dr. Rand McClain supports this idea, asserting that testosterone outperforms SARMs because it poses fewer cardiovascular risks, yields better results, and has a proven track record.
A cycle of testosterone would produce far superior results in terms of muscle hypertrophy and subcutaneous fat loss, without any negative effects on liver enzymes and only mild effects on cholesterol (7).
Co Authors :
Additional Research
- The SARM S4 increases muscle mass, reduces prostate hypertrophy, and improves bone mineral density in orchidectomized rats, following dosages of 3 and 10 mg/kg (8).
- LY305 increased skeletal muscle mass and did not worsen hematocrit or HDL cholesterol levels following 4 weeks of supplementation (9). It also demonstrated osteoprotective effects.
- Multiple SARMs enhanced the body composition and physical performance of 970 patients (10). Therefore, SARMs may become a potential treatment for sarcopenia.
- Non-steroidal SARMs were discovered in 1998 (11).
- A 24-year-old male experienced canalicular cholestasis, recording bilirubin levels of 38.5 mg/dL following 5 weeks of RAD 140 use (12).
- 1 mg of LGD 4033 per day causes notable testosterone suppression during 21 days of administration (13). Prostate-specific antigen levels remained unchanged in the 76 male participants.
- Ostarine was shown to be "well tolerated" in 120 elderly men (14).
References
(1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2907129/
(2) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7126460/
(3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6240568/
(4) https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hep4.1456
(6) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8881971/
(7) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451678/
(8) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16099859/
(9) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29527831/
(10) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39285652/
(11) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9514878/
(12) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9753945/