What the human record holds, compound by compound

Why are these tiered by evidence instead of by goal?

Because the shape of an honest answer changes depending on whether a human trial exists at all, and a goal-based grouping hides exactly that difference behind an outcome word.

The split it produces: tirzepatide, semaglutide and tesamorelin come with phase 3 programs, published endpoints and approved labels. BPC-157, TB-500, MOTS-c and GHK-Cu do not have a completed randomized human trial between them on the form people buy.

Why that ordering matters: a page grouped under fat loss or recovery reads as though the four compounds under it are four options for the same job. Grouped by evidence, the first thing visible is that one of them has 72-week outcome data and another has rodents.

What does every guide in here have in common?

The same four moves, in the same order: what the molecule is, what named trials tested and reported, the arithmetic that joins a milligram figure on a label to a reading on a barrel, and an explicit statement of what the record does not cover.

Figures keep their conditions: a result is reported with its arm, its timepoint and its population attached, and figures from separate trials are never set side by side as though one experiment produced both.

An empty record is reported as empty: where no human trial exists, the guide says so and leaves the gap visible rather than filling it with a number that circulates online without an origin.

Where do the water, route, and comparison pages fit?

They are the shared dependencies. Almost every compound page runs into the same three questions underneath the compound itself: which water a vial is mixed with, which route a label names, and how the molecule differs from whatever it is sold beside.

Rather than repeating that nineteen times: each of those lives on its own page, gets sourced once, and is linked from the guides that need it. The bacteriostatic water pages carry the label definitions, the administration pages carry what approved labels specify about route, site and needle, and the comparison pages handle the pairs people keep merging.

The arithmetic lives elsewhere too: the conversions themselves are worked in the dose math section and run in the tools, so a guide can point at them instead of re-deriving the same division.

The nineteen pages

Grouped by how much human evidence exists: the tier label on each card is the honest headline of the page behind it, not a rating of the compound.

Where this sits in the library

Upstream of these pages: the per-compound calculators run the vial arithmetic for the three compounds that have an approved label to check against, and the tools run the same conversions for any vial at all.

Next to them: the classification pages answer what a compound is and what regulators call it, which is a different question from what a trial measured.

The full index: every page published so far is listed in the library, and the sourcing rules behind all of them are on the methodology page.

Last reviewed: 27 July 2026.