Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are the potential health risks associated with taking Apex Force?
Executive Summary
The evidence compiled from studies and reviews suggests that products like Apex Force—positioned in the dietary supplement or performance-enhancing category—carry measurable risks including liver injury, muscle/tendon damage, hormonal disruption, and contamination-related toxicity. Reports range from clinical trial observations of tolerability to systematic reviews and market analyses that document anabolic agents, toxic contaminants, and adverse-event patterns; taken together they establish a credible, multi-source basis for exercising caution [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why liver damage keeps appearing in the evidence — a recurring red flag
Multiple analyses converge on drug-induced liver injury as a consistent risk signal for androgenic and poorly regulated supplement products. A clinical subset analysis observed liver-related adverse events linked to certain transitions in therapy, noting that hepatic effects can be associated with treatment timing and substance class [1]. Systematic reviews of selective androgen receptor modulators identify liver toxicity as a primary safety concern, while surveillance of over-the-counter supplements and protein products found hepatotoxicity signals possibly driven by contaminants or adulterants. These findings span 2022–2024 publications, indicating ongoing hepatic risk across product types and years [2] [4] [3].
2. Musculoskeletal harms and acute breakdown: rhabdomyolysis and tendon rupture
Evidence from a systematic review explicitly links SARM exposure to rhabdomyolysis and tendon rupture, conditions that can cause acute, severe morbidity and require urgent care [2]. Complementary surveillance data from military supplement users show that high-risk categories—pre/post-workout and prohormone products—correlate with a higher prevalence of adverse musculoskeletal events, indicating that both pharmacologic action and adulteration can contribute to these harms. The data suggest that both intended pharmacodynamics and illicit product contents are implicated in tendon and muscle injuries reported between 2022 and 2024 [2] [5].
3. Hormonal disruption, fertility consequences, and sexual dysfunction in men
Recent 2024 reviews and audits document that anabolic-androgenic steroid usage produces enduring endocrine harms: decreased testicular volume, reduced libido, erectile dysfunction, infertility, and polycythaemia among non-prescribed users [6] [7]. These studies emphasize that even non-prescribed, recreational use can lead to clinically significant hypogonadism and reproductive harm, and they recommend specific screening measures—hormone panels and fertility evaluations—when assessing patients with possible exposure. The temporal clustering of findings in 2024 highlights continued clinical recognition of long-term reproductive risks [6] [7].
4. Contamination and hidden anabolic agents: why labels can’t be trusted
Analyses of commercial supplements repeatedly detect anabolic steroids, fungal toxins, pesticides, and heavy metals in products marketed for performance or protein supplementation [3] [4]. A 2022 study documented anabolic steroids in over-the-counter products, associating these hidden agents with liver damage and other adverse effects, while a 2024 market analysis of protein powders found multiple contaminant classes. These findings demonstrate that risks are not limited to active ingredients but include supply-chain, manufacturing, and adulteration failures that expose users to unpredictable toxicants [3] [4].
5. Patterns of harm across populations: military surveillance and recreational users
Population-level surveillance—such as the US Military Dietary Supplement Use Study—identifies higher adverse-event prevalence tied to specific supplement categories, reinforcing that real-world use amplifies risks beyond controlled trials [5]. Recreational SARM and anabolic use emerges as a distinct high-risk behavior in systematic reviews, with authors urging discouragement of non-medical use because of documented harms like liver injury and rhabdomyolysis. The consistency between institutional surveillance [8] and clinical reviews (2023–2024) suggests systemic vulnerabilities in monitoring and regulation [5] [2].
6. What the evidence does not resolve and consequential gaps to consider
Existing analyses identify risks but often cannot attribute harm to a specific branded product without product-level testing; contaminant studies and adverse-event reports highlight associative rather than definitive causal links in many cases [3] [5]. Trial data showing relative tolerability in therapeutic settings (e.g., berotralstat analyses) do not translate directly to unregulated supplements marketed as Apex Force, and differences in formulation, dosing, and user populations limit direct comparability [1]. The literature through 2024 therefore leaves open questions about precise incidence, dose-response, and product-specific culpability [1] [4].
7. Practical implications: screening, surveillance, and regulatory gaps worth noting
Across reviews and studies, authors recommend enhanced surveillance, clinician screening for liver and endocrine dysfunction, and public-health measures to curb recreational SARM and anabolic use; these include routine lab monitoring and reporting systems for dangerous supplements [5] [2] [7]. The combined evidence from 2022–2024 supports actionable steps: screen for hepatic enzymes and hormonal disruption in symptomatic users, test suspicious products for adulterants, and prioritize regulatory oversight of manufacturing and labeling. These measures address both direct pharmacologic harms and the contamination-driven risks documented in market analyses [7] [4].