One question that arises when buying SARMs for the first time is the form of the compound that would be best for your research. This means comparing selective androgen receptor modulators pills vs. liquid: Is one superior to the other in any way?
Selective androgen receptor modulators, aka SARMs, are a unique class of compounds that have anabolic properties similar to anabolic steroids, but they produce fewer side effects due to their selectivity for some androgen receptors over others.
All SARMs are manufactured in loose powder form and can be consumed that way by test subjects. Producers can also offer them in capsules or mix the powder with a liquid base to make a liquid solution.
This guide will walk you through the benefits and drawbacks of SARMs liquid vs pill, while comparing the two forms. The scientist ultimately must understand their individual needs in research, but the knowledge gleaned from this article should be helpful to decide which option is best for a few particular instances.
SARMs Pill
SARMs pill forms are available in either tablet or capsules. A tablet is made by compacting a powder into a pill shape. Capsule SARMs are made by encasing a powder or liquid in an outer shell, mostly made from gelatin to dissolve easily in the stomach. Either form is designed for ease of ingestion.
A test subject may begin to feel the effects once the active ingredient hits the bloodstream. This may take an hour or two in pill form. When given on an empty stomach, test subjects have shown the effects sooner because the rate of metabolism will be higher.
They may have diarrhea as a result of GI irritation from active ingredients or binders/fillers in the delivery system.
SARMs in pill form have both benefits and setbacks. Here are some of the top reasons for and against the administration of SARMs in pill form.
Benefits of Pills
Most test subjects who prefer SARMs pills vs. liquids do so because of the convenience that pills offer. They are easy to give test subjects and fit into a routine when mixed in test subject food to bypass the awful taste that usually decreases test subject compliance.
They are convenient to store and transport without the risk of spillage. SARMs pills are flavorless, with no chemical-like taste which increase test subject compliance.
Drawbacks of Pills
Getting exact quantities of SARMs can be difficult when administering SARMs in pill form to test subjects, especially if they are for large test subjects. A 3 mg pill of Ligandrol is a challenge, for example, if you have capsules of 10mg each.
A researcher interested in using 5mg per day, or dividing a 10mg amount throughout the day will not be able to conduct reliable research with capsules, especially if the capsule shell must be broken.
SARMs capsules may not be ideal for those who wish to titrate SARMs to exact quantities or lower amounts than what the capsules are made in. The capsule form of SARMs are not superior to LS in this manner.
Pills may also be slower to take effect compared with the liquid form of SARMs. This is because they have to first get to the stomach and go through the digestive process before they are bioavailable. This may take up to two hours, depending on one’s metabolism.
The most significant drawback to pills is that they are inconsistent in specific amounts. From one pill to the next concentration can vary by over 10% at times and third party testing for pill form is unreliable compared to batches of uniformly dissolved liquid products. Raw Powder SARMs are also superior due to this factor.
Packaging SARMs into pills can make them seem like basic medications, but it’s important to note that the FDA hasn’t approved these drugs for human consumption in either form.
No matter what, they are only allowed as research chemicals until further studies can examine whether they are safe enough for the general public. We would advise against utilizing anecdotal evidence to formulate opinions on SARMs as this can be misconstrued with false statements as opposed to certified research articles conducted by scientists.
An important fact to note is that SARMs are also considered performance-enhancing compounds and are thus banned by many sports leagues and competitions, so check with your league before participating in research on SARMS if you are an athlete.
SARMs Liquids
Producers make SARMs liquids by dissolving the powdered chemical in solvents like alcohol or PEG400. The solvent draws out the active ingredient and concentrates it in the liquid. They usually come in a colored bottle to shield the mixture from light to extend the shelf life.
SARMs are orally bioavailable so while liquids may be consumed via sublingual administration – which means placing a few drops beneath the tongue and holding for 15-30 seconds before swallowing – they are designed to be swallowed directly and absorbed in the GI tract by test subjects.
Like us at Sports Technology Labs, most companies that manufacture high quality SARMs prefer the liquid version to capsules because the compounds are meant for research only. Providing them in pill form may imply a use beyond research and also restricts research to specific and often very high amounts, and this might therefore invite regulatory scrutiny.
Researchers have a vested interest to weight the pros and cons of these compounds, and most often choose SARMs liquid as the product of choice. Below is a breakdown of the benefits and drawbacks of SARMs in liquid form.
Benefits of SARMs Liquid
Liquid SARMs (LS) come in a dropper bottle that makes it easy to measure out an exact quantity. You can also easily titrate the desired quantity (to the exact milligram) to suit your individual test subject’s needs, which is impossible with SARMs capsules. LS are also ideal for subjects who have difficulty swallowing capsules.
The higher level advantage of LS is uniformity of product. From one ML to the next, and from one bottle to the next, the mg content of the active ingredient is the same. With capsules that are machine-mixed with fillers, concentration may vary, sometimes over 10% from one capsule to the next in the same bottle.
This makes third-party testing unreliable for SARMs pills, giving LS a significant advantage in consistent quality over pills. It would be impossible to test each capsule for quality, making data surround this nonexistent.
Drawbacks of SARMs Liquids
SARMs liquids have a chemical taste that may be unpleasant for some test subjects and may cause compliance issues. This may also leave a bitter taste in the mouth, but only lasts for a short period.
Liquid SARMs can also be less convenient to travel with, but this depends on the quality of the bottle used for packaging. High-quality liquid SARMs from a reputable vendor should have reliable packaging that isn’t prone to spillage every time it is transported.
Both forms of SARMs ultimately have benefits and setbacks. It is up to the end researcher to decide which one best suits their needs. Test subjects will sometimes purchase 00 gelatin capsules to dispense their desired liquid SARMs into for immediate testing.
This process takes a few seconds each time and spares the test subject the chemical taste of SARMs in liquid form. This is usually completed in small increments and takes a great length of time to perform which is the main reason researchers don’t complete this step.
Most scientists prefer SARMs liquids over capsules because of their efficiency, reliability, and that they are pre-made solutions that are mixed in grain alcohol or PEG 400. It’s essential whichever form you decide on to ensure that you’ve chosen a reputable source providing SARMs of the highest purity, verified by independent lab testing .
Researchers have found compounds mislabeled or containing other ingredients, so finding a quality source is crucial. Research subject compliance should also be considered when deciding what is best for your trial and testing .
Visit the Sports Technology Labs Blog for News and Information About SARMs
For the highest quality RAD 140, Ligandrol, Ostarine, MK 677, and other SARMs, look no further than Sports Technology Labs. Visit the Sports Technology Labs research blog for information about new products, updates in the industry, new scientific literature, and product comparisons.
Scientific References:
1. Kintz, P. (2022). The forensic response after an adverse analytical finding (doping) involving a selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) in human athlete. Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis, 207, 114433.
2. Barbara, M., Dhingra, S., & Mindikoglu, A. L. (2020). Drug-induced liver injury associated with Alpha Bolic (RAD-140) and Alpha Elite (RAD-140 and LGD-4033). ACG Case Reports Journal, 7(6).
3. Miklos, A., Vescan, A. T., Farczadi, L., Imre, S., Vari, C. E., & Muntean, D. L. (2019). Development of an Analytical Methodology for the Qualitative and Quantitative Characterization of Capsules with Andarine, in Order to Use them to Investigate the Pharmacotoxicological Profile of the Substance. REVISTA DE CHIMIE, 70(8), 2759-2763.
4. Kintz, P., Ameline, A., Gheddar, L., & Raul, J. S. (2019). LGD-4033, S-4 and MK-2866–Testing for SARMs in hair: About 2 doping cases. Toxicologie Analytique et Clinique, 31(1), 56-63.
5. Schneekloth, A. R., Pucheault, M., Tae, H. S., & Crews, C. M. (2008). Targeted intracellular protein degradation induced by a small molecule: En route to chemical proteomics. Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters, 18(22), 5904-5908.
6. Haapala, M., Saarela, V., Pól, J., Kolari, K., Kotiaho, T., Franssila, S., & Kostiainen, R. (2010). Integrated liquid chromatography–heated nebulizer microchip for mass spectrometry. Analytica chimica acta, 662(2), 163-169.