Skip to content

Evidence-led · US

Peptides,
decoded.

One of the most interesting areas in health right now, and one of the hardest to get straight. The good answers are buried in forum threads, podcasts and trial PDFs. We dig them out and show the evidence behind each one.

Why this exists

It shouldn’t be this hard to get a straight answer.

I am 42. A couple of years ago I decided I was ageing badly and did something about it: sleep, strength, running, and then peptides, which I came to as a sceptic. Reading up on them, I found vendor copy, forum lore and clinic marketing sitting where the research should have been. So I read the research instead, had bloods done before I touched anything, and started keeping notes. This is the notebook. I am not a doctor, and I will never tell you what to take.

Sebastian Hunter, founder and editor →

Why it is missing

Research compounds are sold for research use only. Spelling out what the studies found would put the seller on the wrong side of the law, so most of them explain nothing at all.

Where it ends up

The good explanations survive anyway, forty comments into a forum thread or an hour into a podcast, with nothing underneath them you can check.

What we do about it

We do the digging and show the working. Where a claim rests on a study, the citation is machine-fetched from PubMed so it cannot drift from the paper it names. Where it rests on a regulator, a label or plain arithmetic, we say that instead of dressing it up as science.

Tool

Reconstitution maths

Concentration, draw volume, syringe units. Maths you can check, not medical advice.