Ostarine, Ligandrol and RAD-140: Goals, Doses and Risks
Ostarine vs LGD vs RAD
People compare SARMs for muscle gain, strength and keeping muscle during a cut. Oral convenience is part of the appeal, but these are investigational drugs with different evidence behind them.
There is no proven beginner-to-advanced ladder. More lean mass, better lifting performance and recovery after stopping are separate outcomes.
The goal / the trade-off
Ostarine
Muscle retention
“Mild” does not mean neutral for hormones or cholesterol.
Ligandrol
Size and fullness
More lean mass did not clearly mean more strength; testosterone and HDL fell in a trial.
RAD-140
Strength and lean gains
Liver effects are a concern. A “research” label does not make it harmless.
The human evidence comes from separate enobosarm, LGD-4033 and RAD-140 trials. They did not compare these drugs head to head.
Study doses and durations at a glance
These are research amounts, not bodybuilding instructions. Each amount was a separate study group, not a step-up schedule.
| Compound | Oral amount studied | Frequency and duration | Who was studied |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ostarine / enobosarm | 0.1, 0.3, 1 or 3 mg | Once daily for 86 days (about 12 weeks) | Older men and postmenopausal women |
| Ligandrol / LGD-4033 | 0.1, 0.3 or 1 mg | Daily dosing in a 21-day protocol, with a day-two sampling break | Healthy men |
| RAD-140 / testolone | 50, 100 or 150 mg | Once daily in an oncology study; no fixed bodybuilding course | Women with advanced breast cancer |
Sources: Dalton et al., Basaria et al. and LoRusso et al.. The larger RAD-140 numbers do not mean it is weaker or that those amounts are suitable for recreational use. Milligrams across different drugs are not a potency scale.
Is ostarine a mild option for a cut?
The “first SARM” reputation is not an established safety category. In 120 older adults, the highest study arm improved lean mass and stair-climbing power. The participants were not young lifters in a calorie deficit, and a body-composition measurement does not tell you how much a particular lift will improve.
The same study found lower HDL; total testosterone and SHBG fell in men, although free testosterone did not significantly decrease versus placebo. “Selective” does not mean muscle-only effects. Dalton et al., 2011
Does Ligandrol’s lean-mass gain mean more strength?
In 76 healthy men, LGD-4033 increased lean mass with increasing dose. Leg-press strength did not improve significantly against placebo during the short trial. Total testosterone, SHBG and HDL decreased; free testosterone and FSH were significantly suppressed at the highest study amount. Basaria et al., 2013
Hormones and lipids returned to baseline during the study’s follow-up. That result belongs to this controlled exposure; it does not predict recovery after larger amounts, longer use or a stack.
What does the RAD-140 study tell a lifter?
It confirms that human research exists, but it does not establish recreational strength gains. The first human study enrolled 22 heavily pretreated women with metastatic breast cancer. Liver-test abnormalities were prominent among adverse events. Its benefit findings, dose choices and event rates cannot be transferred directly to healthy men. LoRusso et al., 2022
The bottle adds a second uncertainty
Even a well-described study cannot tell you what an online bottle contains. One analysis tested 44 internet products marketed as SARMs:
23 of 44
Contained a SARM
The name on the product did not reliably identify its contents.
18 of 44
Matched the labeled amount
The quantity of active compound often differed from the label.
These are separate findings from the same sample, not two categories that add up to 44. The products were purchased in 2016; the study does not estimate today’s entire market or certify a supplier. Van Wagoner et al., 2017
Common questions
Which is strongest, and will I keep the gains? These trials cannot rank the drugs for bodybuilding results or promise a percentage of gains retained after stopping. Different participants, durations and endpoints prevent that comparison.
Do SARMs avoid suppression or replace testosterone? No assumption of either is justified. The LGD study measured suppression, and a SARM’s anabolic activity does not establish testosterone replacement. A concentration curve cannot predict hormonal recovery or decide whether recovery medication is appropriate. Read PCT fundamentals.
Are they safer because they are sold as supplements? FDA has not approved SARMs and says they cannot legally be marketed in the US as dietary supplements. It warns of serious risks including liver injury, cardiovascular events and reproductive effects. These warnings do not establish which SARM is safest. FDA consumer information
How long are SARMs detectable? A drug half-life or low plotted value cannot promise a negative-test date. Tests can detect metabolites after the active drug has fallen. USADA explains half-life versus detection.
Is Cardarine another SARM? No. It acts at PPAR-delta; read Cardarine explained.
Sources and review notes
Checked October 11, 2026. The trials above answer different research questions; none establishes a bodybuilding cycle or a head-to-head ranking.
- Dalton et al., 2011: full placebo-controlled enobosarm study in older adults; body composition, stair-climbing power, hormones and lipids.
- Basaria et al., 2013: controlled LGD-4033 trial in healthy men; short exposure and follow-up, with a sampling break after the first dose.
- LoRusso et al., 2022: first human RAD-140 study in advanced breast cancer; original abstract checked, not a healthy-lifter efficacy trial.
- Van Wagoner et al., 2017: chemical analysis of a defined historical product sample, not a current market survey.
- FDA and USADA: regulatory warnings and the distinction between half-life and detection.
Related compounds & model context
Article citations are linked in the text. Related catalog entries have separate model inputs and source notes, which may include unverified estimates. See our methodology for model assumptions and limitations.