Updated September 2026. SARMs Store sells research compounds only. Nothing on this page is medical advice, an instruction for human use, or a promise of any outcome.
Search for SARMs results and you will find two entirely separate bodies of information. One is the peer-reviewed clinical literature, which measured body composition and physical function in controlled trials and published the numbers. The other is the forum and social media record, which reports transformations without control groups, without body composition scanning, without dose verification and usually without any check that the product contained what the label said. This page deals with the first. It sets out what the trials measured, over what timescales, and why the gap between the two records is so wide.
What “results” means in a clinical trial
In the studies that matter, the primary outcome was almost always lean body mass measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, with secondary outcomes such as stair-climb power, grip strength or gait speed. Lean body mass includes water and connective tissue, not only contractile muscle, and a rise in lean mass does not automatically mean a rise in strength. Several of the trials below found exactly that dissociation, which is the single most important fact in this subject and the one least often repeated.
What the trials measured
Ostarine (MK-2866, enobosarm). The phase II trial by Dalton and colleagues, in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle in 2011, gave 120 healthy older men and postmenopausal women placebo or 0.1, 0.3, 1 or 3 mg daily for 12 weeks. At the top dose lean body mass rose by roughly 1.3 kg against placebo and stair-climb power improved by about 15 per cent. The phase III POWER trials reported by Dobs and colleagues in Lancet Oncology in 2013 again found lean mass gains but no consistent improvement in physical function, which is why the compound was never approved.
LGD-4033 (ligandrol). The phase I study by Basaria and colleagues, in the Journals of Gerontology in 2013, dosed 76 healthy young men at 0.1, 0.3 or 1 mg daily for 21 days. Lean body mass rose dose-dependently, by around 1.2 kg at the top dose over three weeks, with no change in fat mass. Total testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin and HDL cholesterol all fell and recovered after the study.
MK-677 (ibutamoren). Nass and colleagues, in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2008, treated healthy adults aged 60 to 81 with 25 mg daily for a year. Fat-free mass rose by about 1.1 kg relative to placebo and IGF-1 returned to young-adult levels, but fat mass did not change significantly and strength did not improve in step with the body composition change.
Read together, the pattern is consistent: gains of roughly one to two kilograms of lean mass over three weeks to a year, at low milligram doses, in mostly older or clinically unwell participants, with functional improvement smaller and less reliable than the mass change.
Timescales in the published record
Study lengths ranged from 21 days (the LGD-4033 phase I) through 12 to 16 weeks (the Ostarine trials) to a year or more (MK-677 in older adults). Where body composition was tracked over time the change was gradual, and in the longest study the second-year data did not show continued acceleration. No trial anywhere in the literature followed healthy young trained men through a training programme, which is precisely the population that reads about these compounds. That absence is why no honest page can tell anyone what to expect.
Why anecdotal reports overstate
Four factors pull forum figures upwards, and they compound.
The first is dose. Trials used 0.1 to 3 mg of Ostarine and 0.1 to 1 mg of LGD-4033. Material sold as research compound is commonly 10 mg per capsule, several times the highest amount ever formally studied, and the safety data at those levels comes from case reports rather than controlled research. Higher input does not straightforwardly scale the trial numbers, and it does change the risk picture.
The second is product identity. Van Wagoner and colleagues, in JAMA in 2017, chemically analysed 44 products sold online as SARMs. Only about half contained the compound named on the label, roughly two in five contained a different unapproved drug, and around one in ten contained no active compound at all. A proportion of reported outcomes, good and bad, were therefore produced by something other than the compound the reporter believed they were taking.
The third is the absence of a control condition. People who start a compound usually also change training, sleep, calories and protein at the same moment, and those changes alone produce measurable body composition shifts in anyone who was not already training consistently. Without a placebo group there is no way to separate the two.
The fourth is selection. Before-and-after photographs are posted by people who were pleased with the outcome. Nobody posts a null result, and lighting, glycogen, hydration and a twelve-week tan account for a large part of the visual difference in many of them.
Side effects reported in the same trials
Any honest account of measured outcomes has to include measured harms, because they came from the same datasets. Across the SARM trials the consistent findings were dose-dependent suppression of total testosterone and sex hormone binding globulin, and a fall in HDL cholesterol, both reversing after the compound was stopped. Liver enzymes were not raised at trial doses, but published case series of drug-induced liver injury exist for bodybuilding products labelled as SARMs, several of which were later found to contain undeclared substances. For MK-677 the recurring findings were increased appetite, transient oedema, raised fasting glucose and reduced insulin sensitivity.
Legal status in the UK, 2026
SARMs are not controlled substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Sold or advertised for human use they are unlicensed medicines, which the MHRA enforces, so they are supplied here strictly for laboratory research. All the compounds named above are prohibited at all times under the WADA Prohibited List, SARMs as other anabolic agents under S1.2 and MK-677 as a growth hormone secretagogue under S2.
How to check a supplier
Given how much of the variability traces back to product identity, verification matters more than any other consideration. Ask for the certificate of analysis for the specific batch rather than a sample document. It should identify the compound by HPLC or LC-MS, state a purity figure, and carry a batch number that matches the bottle. Look for UK manufacturing, clear labelling of compound, amount per capsule and capsule count, and a research-only notice. Dexterz Labs research compounds are made in the UK, 90 capsules per bottle, and batch certificates of analysis are being published on the product page as testing is completed.
Frequently asked questions
How much muscle did the trials actually measure? Roughly one to two kilograms of lean body mass over three weeks to twelve months, depending on compound, dose and population. That is the whole published range.
Do results show up in the first week? The trials reported gradual change measured by DEXA at study endpoints. Early subjective change reported anecdotally is not something the research addresses.
Why are forum numbers so much larger? Higher doses than any trial used, unverified product identity, simultaneous changes to training and diet, no control group, and reporting bias towards good outcomes.
Does the mass gained stay? Where studies followed participants after stopping, hormonal markers returned towards baseline. There is no long-term follow-up of body composition in healthy trained people to answer this properly.
Can SARMs Store tell me what results I will get? No. We sell research compounds, we do not sell outcomes, and we do not give guidance on human use.
Related reading
- Ostarine (MK-2866): the complete research guide
- LGD-4033 (Ligandrol): the research guide
- Are SARMs safe? What the studies and case reports show
- Third-party testing: how to read a certificate of analysis
Research product line: Browse the SARMs research range
Sources: Dalton JT et al., J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2011;2:153-161. Dobs AS et al., Lancet Oncol 2013;14:335-345. Basaria S et al., J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2013;68:87-95. Nass R et al., Ann Intern Med 2008;149:601-611. Van Wagoner RM et al., JAMA 2017;318:2004-2010. WADA Prohibited List 2026.