Follow the evidence, not the hype
Plain-English, evidence-led explanations of what is actually proven, what looks promising, what is still experimental and what nobody honestly knows yet. Human trials kept separate from mouse studies, cell dishes and confident strangers on the internet.
Try “BPC-157”, “retatrutide”, or “heals tendons”.
No bro-science. No miracle claims. No pretending mice are tiny humans.
Nine ways into the evidence, depending on what you came for.
Semaglutide, tirzepatide, retatrutide and the rest.
CJC-1295, ipamorelin, GHRPs — what the evidence actually shows.
BPC-157, TB-500 and the healing claims.
KLOW, GLOW, Wolverine — marketed mixtures, not standard formulations.
MOTS-c, SS-31 and energy metabolism.
Telomeres, ageing biology and lifespan claims.
GHK-Cu and cosmetic evidence.
Theoretical concern vs demonstrated risk.
How to read a study without being fooled.
Six compounds that show how differently the evidence can stack up.
Each badge describes the evidence behind a compound and its legal status — not how safe, effective or recommended it is.
A GLP-1 receptor agonist with one of the largest clinical trial programmes in modern metabolic medicine.
A dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist with strong Phase 3 weight and glycaemic data.
An investigational GIP/GLP-1/glucagon triple agonist with positive pivotal Phase 3 results and no approval anywhere.
The internet's favourite healing peptide: a mountain of rodent data and almost no controlled human evidence.
Mostly animal and lab studies — not yet shown in people
A mitochondrial-derived peptide with genuinely interesting biology and thin translational data.
Mostly animal and lab studies — not yet shown in people
A mitochondria-targeting peptide with a narrow accelerated approval and a much broader set of unproven anti-ageing claims.
Most-read profiles right now: retatrutide (investigational, not approved), tirzepatide and semaglutide among the incretins, plus BPC-157 and MOTS-c on the mostly-preclinical side.
Evidence connections across emerging research topics, not treatment recommendations.
Emerging incretin and amylin research.
Peptides and peptide-adjacent small molecules.
Human evidence versus animal and laboratory findings.
One scale, used everywhere on this site. Levels do not accumulate — a hundred mouse studies never become a human trial.
Evidence levels (L0-L5) describe research maturity, not safety or a recommendation. Human exposure reports and trial registration do not prove a claimed benefit; where they differ, claim-specific evidence is shown separately. Confidence and regulatory status are independent.
Level 5 — Large, repeated human trials
Substantial, consistent controlled human evidence supporting a specified outcome, preferably independently replicated. Approval is reported separately.
Level 4 — Good human trials
Completed, adequately informative controlled human trials supporting a specified outcome; replication and longer-term safety may remain uncertain.
Level 3 — Early human studies
Preliminary human outcome research, including small or observational studies. Descriptive exposure studies alone do not demonstrate therapeutic benefit.
Level 2 — Animal and lab studies
Documented compound-specific animal or laboratory outcome findings, without qualifying human evidence for the assessed benefit.
Level 1 — Theory only
Mechanistic rationale or early development without qualifying compound-specific outcome evidence. A registered trial is not a result.
Level 0 — Anecdote only
Anecdotes or unverified claims without sufficiently documented supporting research.
Baseline entries showing how positions get recorded and revised.
“Evidence rating changed” means new research moved our rating of the evidence. It does not mean the compound itself became better, worse or safer.
Added peer-reviewed SYNCHRONIZE-2 Phase 3 results in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes. The NEJM treatment-regimen estimand showed mean weight changes of -8.2% (3.6 mg) and -9.8% (6.0 mg) versus -3.9% placebo at 76 weeks; sponsor-reported efficacy-estimand results reached up to -13.1% versus -3.1%.
Added CBL-514, an investigational small-molecule injection (not a peptide), with peer-reviewed Phase 2 and Phase 2b abdominal subcutaneous fat-reduction results, the September 2026 Phase 3 SUPREME-01 start, the tirzepatide combination IND and sponsor-reported Dercum's disease Phase 2 results.
Added apitegromab with the Nature Medicine EMBRAZE Phase 2 trial: 1.9 kg less DXA-measured lean-mass loss than placebo at week 24 in 102 adults on tirzepatide (reported 54.9% relative retention).
Added Regeneron's 52-week controlled Phase 2 COURAGE results: DXA-measured lean mass changed by -7.3% with semaglutide alone, -5.8% with trevogrumab 25 mg plus semaglutide and -4.2% with 75 mg plus semaglutide. In the predefined MRI substudy, thigh fat-free muscle volume changed by -1.03, -0.29 and -0.32, respectively; the sponsor derived relative estimates of 71.8% and 68.9% less loss for the trevogrumab groups.
Evidence Watch
Major trial result. Regulatory change. Evidence rating moved. That’s the sort of thing we’ll send — no daily noise, no supplier promotions.
Educational information only
Separate sister project
The Peptide Evidence Registry handles research, evidence grading and educational content. My Gym Buddy is a separate fitness and wellbeing project for training, habits and day-to-day progress. It does not determine Registry evidence ratings or claim verdicts.
The creator
Colin is the creator and editor of The Peptide Evidence Registry — not a doctor or clinician. The project exists for one reason: peptide and GLP-1 research moves faster than most people can read it, and the gap gets filled by marketing. This registry translates that research into evidence summaries you can actually follow, and says plainly when the honest answer is “nobody knows yet”.
