Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Claim Checker

Somebody said it confidently. Is it true?

A curated library of the claims that actually circulate — in forums, in reels, in supplement copy — each with a verdict, the evidence level behind it and the reasoning laid out. Editorial content, written by a human, not generated on the fly.

How to read a verdict. A verdict grades that specific sentence — not the compound as a whole, and not whether it is safe or advisable. The evidence level next to it tells you what kind of studies the verdict rests on. So the same compound can carry a supported claim and a misleading one at the same time — the verdict belongs to the sentence, not to the compound, and never says whether using it is a good idea.

Showing one linked claim.

Claim results

Claim verdict

Emerging & adjacent molecules

MisleadingL2Animal / lab studies

“SLU-PP-915 is exercise in a capsule — the studies show it delivers the benefits of training.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — the studies are in mice, and it is not a peptide either.

Why this verdict

  • The 2026 pharmacology paper reports increased running distance and duration in mice given an orally active ERR pan-agonist, plus induction of exercise-responsive genes. That is a rodent result.
  • No human study of SLU-PP-915 was identified in our curated record — no efficacy trial, no safety dataset, no approved use.
  • Reproducing part of a transcriptional programme that exercise switches on is not the same as reproducing what training does to a person.
  • It is also a small molecule, not a peptide, despite where it is being marketed and discussed.

What the verdicts mean

Supported by evidence
Good human evidence supports the claim as worded, within the populations studied.
Partly supported
There's something real here, but the claim overreaches or blurs a distinction.
Promising but unproven
Plausible mechanism and early data, no controlled human evidence yet.
Not supported as worded
The evidence needed to support this simply doesn't exist. Not the same as disproven.
Misleading
Technically-adjacent to something true, but framed in a way that misleads.
Submit a claim for review →