Methodology
How we score evidence depth, source recency and safety clarity. Behind-the-scenes editorial decisions. The reasoning, not just the result.
Peptides for tendon recovery: the evidence
BPC-157 and TB-500 have promising animal data for tendon and ligament repair, but almost no human trial evidence. Here is how to weight it.
Tendon recovery peptides: evidence grade
BPC-157 has consistent animal tendon data. TB-500 has one human ophthalmic RCT. Neither has an RCT for tendons or ligaments. An honest evidence grade.
GH-axis peptides: weighing the evidence
Tesamorelin, CJC-1295 and ipamorelin sit on three different rungs of the evidence ladder. Here is how to weight what each one actually shows.
GH-axis peptides: grading the evidence
Tesamorelin has two Phase 3 RCTs and FDA approval. CJC-1295 has two early-phase studies. Ipamorelin has one PK study and a negative Phase 2.
Peptides for injury recovery: the evidence
BPC-157 and TB-500 are the most-asked injury-recovery peptides. Here is what is trial-supported, what is animal-only, and what is just anecdote.
Peptide longevity: what the evidence shows
What trial data supports for peptides marketed for longevity: from GLP-1 cardiovascular outcomes to preclinical Epitalon and GHK-Cu research.
Peptides for muscle gain: the evidence
Ipamorelin and CJC-1295 lead the muscle-gain peptide conversation. Here is how their evidence actually ranks, from human pharmacology to mouse data to anecdote.
Sexual-function peptides: the evidence
Only one sexual-function peptide, bremelanotide (Vyleesi), has real trial support, and only for one use. Here is how to weigh the evidence tier by tier.
Peptides for sleep: the evidence grade
MK-677 has a small controlled trial showing improved sleep architecture. Ipamorelin and CJC-1295 raise GH, but their sleep effects remain untested in humans.
Longevity peptides: weighing the evidence
Tesamorelin and ipamorelin get sold as anti-aging tools. Here is what the trial evidence actually supports, and the longevity gap it leaves.