SARMs Podcast: What Fitness and Health Podcasts Get Right and Wrong About SARMs

Key takeaways

Why people search "SARMs podcast"

Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) come up regularly in fitness, bodybuilding, testosterone-optimization, and biohacking podcast content, often alongside discussion of anabolic steroids, testosterone replacement therapy, and peptides. Listeners searching "SARMs podcast" are typically trying to do one of two things: find episodes where hosts discuss compounds such as ostarine, RAD-140 (testolone), or LGD-4033 (ligandrol), or figure out whether what those episodes say lines up with the actual medical evidence.

Podcast formats vary widely, from long-form interview shows to fitness Q&A programs that field listener questions about SARMs alongside training and nutrition topics. One example is a Mind Pump Media Q&A episode titled explicitly around SARMs use, illustrating how the topic is folded into general fitness programming rather than treated as a standalone medical subject. <cite index="25-1">In that episode, hosts answered listener questions about integrating training methods alongside questions about SARMS as part of a broader Q&A format</cite>.

This page does not summarize or endorse claims made in specific episodes. Instead, it lays out what regulators and the peer-reviewed literature actually say about SARMs, so that claims heard on any podcast can be checked against primary sources.

The regulatory starting point: no SARM is approved for human use

Every SARM discussed in fitness or supplement content, including ostarine, is an unapproved investigational drug, not a dietary supplement. <cite index="9-6,9-9">The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers that the agency continues to receive adverse event reports related to selective androgen receptor modulators, commonly called SARMs, which are chemical substances that mimic the effects of testosterone and anabolic steroids and are not FDA approved.</cite>

The FDA has specifically flagged social media and podcast-adjacent promotion as part of the problem. <cite index="9-7,9-8">Social media posts by influencers and sellers of SARMs contribute to the availability and promotion of these dangerous products, and videos on social media platforms tout SARMs as a quick or easy way to improve physical appearance, gain muscle mass, or increase athletic performance.</cite> <cite index="9-10,9-11">Online vendors and social media influencers are using social media to make SARMs seem safe and effective, but the reality is SARMs are potentially dangerous.</cite>

In competitive sport, SARMs are banned outright. <cite index="34-1,34-2">SARMs are listed in the category of "Other Anabolic Agents" under section S1.2 of the WADA Prohibited List, with examples including ostarine (enobosarm, MK-2866), andarine, LGD-4033 (ligandrol), and RAD140.</cite> <cite index="34-3">All SARMs are prohibited at all times, both in and out of competition, for athletes at every level from elite to recreational.</cite> <cite index="34-7,34-8">There are no FDA-approved SARMs currently available for prescription, and because all SARMs are investigational drugs, it is not legal for a doctor to prescribe one.</cite>

What the clinical trial evidence actually shows

Some podcast discussion frames SARMs as having a substantial evidence base because pharmaceutical companies have studied them. It is true that the most-researched SARM, enobosarm (ostarine), has gone through formal clinical development, but for a narrow medical indication, not for bodybuilding. <cite index="29-3,29-4">Enobosarm was studied in the POWER 1 and POWER 2 trials, two identically designed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials assessing its efficacy for the prevention and treatment of muscle wasting in patients starting first-line chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer.</cite>

A separate systematic review of pharmacological cachexia treatments found that <cite index="33-7">enobosarm at 1 and 3 mg per day was effective in improving lean body mass and quality-of-life symptoms among advanced-stage cancer patients</cite> in the trials reviewed. Despite this trial history, enobosarm and every other SARM remain unapproved. <cite index="6-1">Selective androgen receptor modulators are not FDA approved, and obtaining SARMs for personal use is illegal.</cite>

A 2023 systematic review of SARM safety data pooled the available clinical trial and case-report evidence: <cite index="6-6,6-7">thirty-three studies were included, comprising 15 case reports or case series and 18 clinical trials with a total of 2,136 patients, 1,447 of whom were exposed to a SARM, and the case reports described drug-induced liver injury (15 cases), Achilles tendon rupture (1 case), rhabdomyolysis (1 case), and mild reversible liver enzyme elevation (1 case).</cite> <cite index="6-8">Elevated alanine aminotransferase was commonly reported in clinical trials in patients exposed to a SARM, at a mean of 7.1% across trials.</cite>

Liver injury: the best-documented harm

The harm most consistently documented in the medical literature, and the one most likely to be understated in casual podcast conversation, is drug-induced liver injury. The National Library of Medicine's LiverTox database has a dedicated entry for SARMs stating that <cite index="19-1,19-2">there have been multiple reports of clinically apparent liver injury with jaundice in patients taking SARMs for bodybuilding on their own and without medical supervision, with a latency to onset typically of 2 to 3 months, ranging from a few weeks to a year.</cite>

LiverTox also notes the absence of any proven treatment: <cite index="19-6,19-7">there are no known effective therapies for SARM-related liver injury, and the major goals are discontinuation of all muscle-building supplements and avoidance of other hepatotoxic exposures; ursodiol and N-acetyl cysteine are often used but have not been shown to be effective.</cite> It further warns that <cite index="19-14">restarting a SARM after clinically apparent liver injury is usually followed by recurrence of liver test abnormalities and should not be tried, even when switching to a different SARM.</cite>

Multiple individual case reports back this pattern across different SARMs. A 2022 case report described <cite index="3-9">a 29-year-old male bodybuilder with no significant past medical history who presented with painless jaundice, pruritus, fatigue, and significantly elevated liver function tests</cite> after SARM use. A 2024 case report involving RAD-140 found that <cite index="11-4,11-5,11-6">the patient experienced jaundice and elevated liver enzymes after three months of RAD-140 use, with a liver ultrasound revealing hepatic steatosis and a hyperechoic lesion, and symptoms resolved after discontinuing RAD-140.</cite> A 2025 case series reported the first adolescent case of SARM-associated liver injury, noting that <cite index="13-1,13-2">it showed a primarily hepatocellular pattern of injury, whereas previous reports in adults had shown a primarily cholestatic pattern.</cite> A separate case required evaluation for liver transplantation: <cite index="20-13">the authors presented a case of chronic SARM use and delayed-onset hepatotoxicity in a patient requiring liver transplantation evaluation.</cite>

A broader pharmacovigilance-style review summarized the same signal at the regulatory level: <cite index="4-10">the FDA has issued a warning letter about the health risks associated with body-building products containing SARMs, citing a potential increase in the risk of heart attack or stroke and other life-threatening adverse reactions such as liver damage.</cite>

Other harms cited by the FDA

Beyond the liver, the FDA's consumer warning lists a broader set of adverse effects drawn from adverse event reports and published studies. <cite index="9-16">Studies and reports show SARMs are associated with serious or life-threatening health problems, including increased risk of heart attack or stroke, psychosis and hallucinations, sleep disturbances, sexual dysfunction, liver injury and acute liver failure, infertility, pregnancy miscarriage, and testicular shrinkage.</cite>

The FDA also cautions that the true scale of harm is likely underestimated. <cite index="9-12,9-13,9-14,9-15">The FDA continues to receive adverse event reports associated with SARMs use, but the real number of consumers experiencing adverse events is likely higher due to underreporting, in part because these are not approved drugs and consumers may be reluctant to report adverse events, may not know they can, or may not connect their symptoms to the product.</cite>

A 2022 case report also underscored how little controlled safety data exists relative to how widely SARMs are used: <cite index="3-2,3-6">SARMs are very popular among athletes and bodybuilders and available online or over the counter, yet, like anabolic androgenic steroids, which have known hepatotoxic potential, there is only limited safety data available for SARMs.</cite>

Purity and contamination add another layer of risk

Because SARMs sold online are marketed outside any pharmaceutical quality-control framework, what is in the product does not reliably match the label. A hepatologist quoted by Cleveland Clinic explained that <cite index="7-6,7-7">the supplement market is highly unregulated with very little quality control, and products marketed as SARMs may contain a very low percentage of those compounds or a very high, toxic level of them</cite>. A 2025 case report similarly noted that <cite index="16-10">due to the lack of purity regulation, it is difficult to determine whether the extent of liver injury was caused by the labeled SARM or a contaminant SARM</cite>.

How to evaluate SARMs claims heard on a podcast

When a podcast host or guest makes a claim about SARMs, three questions can help separate marketing framing from evidence: First, is the claim about a specific, named clinical trial (such as the enobosarm POWER trials in cancer cachexia), or is it an anecdote about personal or third-party use? Second, does the discussion address the documented harms, particularly liver injury, or does it focus only on purported muscle-building benefits? Third, does the source acknowledge that no SARM is approved for human use by the FDA, the EMA, or any other regulator, a point confirmed across multiple independent reviews. <cite index="4-2">Despite being in clinical trials, none has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency for pharmacotherapy.</cite>

Podcast content that presents SARMs as a low-risk alternative to anabolic steroids without mentioning liver injury, cardiovascular risk, or the lack of regulatory approval is not consistent with the case-report and regulatory record summarized above.

Frequently asked

References