SARMs vs Anabolic Steroids: What’s the Difference in Research?

“Despite their intended tissue selectivity, SARMs still cause testosterone suppression and carry systemic risks. They should not be assumed to be safe alternatives to anabolic steroids.” – Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety (peer-reviewed journal), DOI: 10.1177/20420986231122877

Did you know that substances marketed as “safer muscle‑builders” might actually carry almost identical risks to their more notorious counterparts?
When it comes to performance‑enhancement and physique gains, two acronyms dominate the conversation: Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (known as SARMs in the UK) and **Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS or simply “anabolic steroids”). On the surface, they look like different tools. But dig deeper – and the differences blur.

If you’re thinking about body composition, strength, or even competing – you must understand how they compare, what the science says, and the legal/health implications. Let’s break it down.

What are Anabolic Steroids?

Definition & medical use

Anabolic steroids are synthetic derivatives of testosterone – the male sex hormone. They bind to androgen receptors in many tissues, promoting muscle growth (anabolic effect) and male characteristics (androgenic effect).
Medically, anabolic steroids can be used under prescription for conditions such as hypogonadism (low testosterone), some wasting syndromes, certain anaemias or hormone replacement.

Mechanism of action

• They bind to androgen receptors throughout the body, such as the mechanism of LGD4033 (muscle, bone, prostate, skin, etc.).
• In muscle tissue, that increases protein synthesis, lean body mass and strength.
• But because they’re non‑selective, the androgenic effects are broad: impacting skin, hair, reproductive organs, liver, cardiovascular system.

Legal & regulatory status in the UK

In the UK, anabolic steroids are classified as Class C drugs when used without prescription (possession for personal use is legal, but import/export/supply without licence is illegal).

Read more about the law surrounding SARMS

Risks & side‑effects

The list is long:

• Raised blood pressure, adverse lipid profile (↑ LDL, ↓ HDL) → cardiovascular risk.
• Liver damage (especially certain oral forms).
• Hormonal disruption: testicular atrophy, infertility, gynecomastia in men; virilisation (voice deepening, hair growth) in women.
• Psychiatric effects: mood swings, aggression (“roid‑rage”), dependence.
• For adolescents: stunted growth, premature closure of growth plates.

Summary

Anabolic steroids offer potent muscle‑and‑bone‑building effects, but at a cost: high risk side‑effects, legal restrictions, and documented long‑term harms.

What are SARMs?

Definition & origin

SARMs (Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators) are a newer class of compounds developed with an aim: deliver the anabolic benefits (muscle/bone) of androgens while reducing the undesirable androgenic side‑effects (skin, prostate, hair).
In effect, they bind to androgen receptors in a tissue‑selective manner, or so the theory goes.

Core reading: SARMS UK Guide

Mechanism of action

• Unlike anabolic steroids which bind broadly to androgen receptors in many tissues, SARMs aim to target primarily muscle and bone.
• For example: they are often not substrates for 5α‑reductase (an enzyme converting testosterone → DHT in tissues like prostate/skin), which may reduce androgenic side‑effects.
• Some may act as partial agonists/antagonists depending on tissue context.

Current status of approval & use

Here’s a key point: no SARM is fully approved by major regulatory bodies (FDA / EMA) for the general enhancement of muscle/physique.
They are still largely in investigational/clinical trial phases for therapeutic uses (e.g., muscle wasting, osteoporosis).
Despite that, they are widely sold (legally/illegally online) for body‑building and performance use – often labelled “research chemicals” or “not for human consumption”.

“The use of any investigational medicinal product – including SARMs – must be part of a clinical trial authorised by the MHRA and reviewed by a research ethics committee.” – Health Research Authority (HRA)
Source: hra.nhs.uk – Clinical Trials Regulation

Risks & side‑effects

While the risks may seem lower compared to anabolic steroids (in theory), significant concerns remain:

• Suppression of endogenous testosterone and fertility issues.
• Liver enzyme elevations / hepatotoxicity reports.
• Altered cholesterol profiles (↓ HDL) and other cardiovascular markers.
• Lack of long‑term data: we don’t know the full scope of side‑effects or the “safe” dose.

Further reading: MK-677 side effects

Legal & sporting status

• They are banned by the World Anti‑Doping Agency (WADA) as anabolic agents.
• In many jurisdictions, may be unlicensed/unregulated for human use, or legal loopholes exist for “research” sale.

Summary

SARMs represent a purported “next‑generation” androgenic/ anabolic tool with potential of fewer side effects – but the evidence is limited, and many of the supposed advantages remain theoretical.

SARMs vs Anabolic Steroids

Let’s compare them side by side across key dimensions.

Category	Anabolic Steroids	SARMs
Mechanism / selectivity	Broad androgen receptor activation, many tissues (muscle, skin, prostate)	Tissue‑selective activation (muscle/bone preferentially) – in theory. Much faster Half-Life times to help clearance
Approval / medical use	Some have approved medical use (e.g., testosterone replacement)	No approved widespread therapeutic muscle‑building use yet
Muscle / strength potential	High – proven in many studies and decades of use	Promising, but less well‑documented; likely lower maximal effect than steroids
Side‑effects (evidence)	Well‑documented: cardiovascular, liver, hormone disruption, psychiatric, reproductive	Emerging: same categories affected (hormone suppression, liver effects) but long‑term data lacking
Legal / regulatory risk	High when non‑prescribed; controlled substance in many countries	Also high risk: banned in sport, many products mis‑labelled, grey‑market status
Perceived “safety”	Often seen as higher risk (because side‑effects known)	Marketed as “safer” or “less side‑effects”, but evidence to support that is weak and still developing
Availability / cost / use culture	Long‑standing availability (illicit bodybuilding market), known dosages, cycles	Newer, less well‑standardised spectrum, many “research chemical” labels, dose‑variability high

Key differences unpacked

1. Selectivity vs non‑selectivity: The main theoretical appeal of SARMs is tissue specificity – less androgenic effect on skin, prostate, hair. But this selectivity is not guaranteed in practise because many compounds are untested or mis‑labelled.
2. Evidence base: Anabolic steroids have decades of data (good and bad). SARMs are much newer; many are still in trials and not well studied in healthy athletes.
3. Regulatory status: Steroids have clearer legal frameworks; SARMs exist often in a legal grey area (especially online).
4. Risk promoting behaviour: Many bodybuilders using these compounds combine with other drugs (stacking), often increasing risk. Both categories share this culture – so side‑effects risk often stems from “hard use” rather than “ideal clinical use”.

Core reading: Ostarine Guide

Similarities that matter

• Both act via androgen receptor to increase lean mass/strength (albeit to different degree)
• Both can suppress your natural hormone production (HPG axis) and fertility.
• Both are banned in sports and come with doping risk.
• Both carry health risks: liver, cardiovascular, hormonal. The difference is magnitude, clarity of data, but not category.

Why the “SARMs are safer” myth is misleading

You’ve likely heard: “SARMs = steroid effects without the nasty side‑effects.” Sounds great. Except: that claim is speculative.

• Research warns: “SARMs are still in investigational stages … their safety profile and long‑term effects haven’t been well studied.”
• Many products labelled “SARM” are mis‑labelled, contaminated or dosed unpredictably.
• The dose and stacking behaviours seen in fitness circles often far exceed those studied in trials → increased risk.
• Health harms (liver enzyme elevation, hormone suppression) already documented. Not “zero risk”.

In short: the “safe steroid alternative” tagline is marketing, not fact. If you are using or considering using, assume risk until proven otherwise.

Questions you should ask as a research trial candidate

• Is this product legal in my country? Do I have a prescription or is it unlicensed?
• What dose has been clinically studied for safety, and how does my intended dose compare?
• Am I aware of medical baseline (hormones, liver/kidney, lipids) and monitoring plan?

Further reading: Can SARMs be detected in drug tests?

What’s the difference – and which is the best candidate for clinical trials?

“Many SARMs have shown the potential to treat male hypogonadal symptoms such as deficits in muscle mass and bone density… However, approval for SARMs in the treatment of male hypogonadism likely hinges upon ‘defining what constitutes a clinical deficit in these hypogonadal symptoms, and… defining what qualifies as a clinical benefit in ameliorating them’. ” PubMed Central

• If your objective is maximum muscle/strength regardless of risk, anabolic steroids offer the highest proven effect – but also the highest documented risk.
• If your objective is reduced side‑effects with moderate effect, SARMs might seem tempting – but beware: evidence is limited, long‑term risks unclear, and many products are unregulated.
• If your objective is safe, sustainable physique/health, the best route remains training, nutrition, recovery, and medically supervised interventions – rather than “shortcut” chemicals.

In short: the difference is degree, not category. SARMs are not “steriod‑lite” in the sense of being risk‑free. They sit on the same spectrum of androgenic/anabolic manipulation, just with less clarity about their full profile.

Key Takeaways

• Anabolic steroids = tested, potent, high risk; SARMs = newer, less proven, still risk.
• “Selectivity” in SARMs is promising but not fully realised in real‑world use.
• Legal and sporting penalties apply to both.
• Health monitoring and informed decision‑making are essential.
• The foundation for muscle/strength doesn’t come from substances alone – training + recovery + nutrition matter most.

FAQ

• Q: Are SARMs legal in the UK?
  A: Generally, no SARMs are approved for human use as muscle‑building supplements in the UK. They often exist in a legal grey area when marketed as “research chemicals”. Selling them for human consumption may violate regulations.
• Q: Can I avoid all side‑effects if I take a low dose of steroid or SARM?
  A: Not reliably. Even lower doses can suppress your hormones or impact liver/lipids. Lack of long‑term data means “safe dose” is speculative.
• Q: Which has a higher risk of liver damage?
  A: Historically, some oral anabolic steroids (especially 17α‑alkylated) have high hepatotoxicity. Some SARMs have shown elevated liver enzymes and hepatotoxicity in case‑reports. So both can risk the liver.
• Q: If I’m competing in sport, can I ever use a SARM legally?
  A: No – both steroids and SARMs are prohibited under most anti‑doping rules (including WADA). Using either will risk disqualification.
• Q: How can trial coordinators ensure compliance?
  A: Ensure all compounds are research grade SARMs, complete with COA and HPLC Tested