Over the past several years, peptides have become one of the most discussed topics in health, fitness, and longevity. Whether you're scrolling through social media, listening to a podcast, or talking with someone at the gym, chances are you've heard about a peptide that supposedly improves body composition, accelerates recovery, or slows aging.
Some of these claims sound almost too good to be true, and although certain peptides have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness in well-controlled clinical trials, others have produced intriguing results in animals but have little evidence supporting their use in humans.
I think this is a distinction to highlight because peptides are not one specific drug or supplement, but an incredibly broad category of compounds with different biological functions, mechanisms, and levels of scientific support. When someone says that peptides work, my immediate question is which peptide they're referring to and what outcome they're trying to achieve.
In this article, I want to explore what peptides actually are, why they've become so popular, and what the research tells us about their potential benefits and limitations. We'll examine some of the most talked-about compounds, including semaglutide, tirzepatide, retatrutide, BPC-157, and several substances marketed for longevity. I'll also discuss where I believe these compounds fit into a broader approach to health and fitness, particularly when considering the importance of exercise, nutrition, and long-term behavioral habits.
What Are Peptides?
Before discussing individual compounds, it's worth understanding what peptides actually are. Proteins are composed of amino acids linked together in chains, and peptides are also made from amino acids, although they generally consist of shorter chains than what we typically classify as proteins. Depending on their structure, peptides can function as hormones, signaling molecules, or regulators of various physiological processes. Some influence appetite and blood glucose regulation, while others are involved in tissue repair, inflammation, or cellular communication.
Peptides are not inherently anabolic steroids, fat burners, or anti-aging drugs. Their effects depend entirely on the specific compound and the biological pathways it influences. For the purposes of this article, we'll focus on three categories that have attracted considerable attention within the health and fitness community: weight-loss peptides, injury-recovery peptides, and compounds marketed for longevity. These categories also demonstrate how dramatically the quality of scientific evidence can vary, with some compounds having been studied in thousands of humans and others barely progressing beyond animal experiments.
Weight-Loss Peptides: Semaglutide, Tirzepatide, and Retatrutide
Semaglutide: The Medication That Changed Weight-Loss Treatment
Perhaps the most recognizable peptide currently used in medicine is semaglutide, which is sold under brand names including Ozempic and Wegovy. Semaglutide belongs to a class of medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, commonly called GLP-1 receptor agonists. GLP-1 is a hormone naturally produced in the body that helps regulate blood glucose and appetite, and semaglutide mimics its activity by activating GLP-1 receptors. Its effects include stimulating glucose-dependent insulin secretion, reducing inappropriate glucagon secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and influencing appetite regulation through the central nervous system.
For individuals attempting to lose weight, the most important effect is generally a reduction in hunger and overall food intake. Rather than directly burning fat or dramatically increasing energy expenditure, semaglutide makes it easier for individuals to consume fewer calories. This is particularly interesting because the fundamental mechanism behind weight loss remains unchanged: individuals must maintain an energy deficit over time. Semaglutide simply makes achieving that deficit substantially easier for many people, which helps explain why it has produced such impressive results compared with traditional lifestyle interventions alone.
One of the landmark investigations into semaglutide was the STEP 1 trial, published by Wilding and colleagues in 2021. In this randomized controlled trial, approximately 1,961 adults with overweight or obesity were assigned to receive either semaglutide or a placebo alongside lifestyle interventions. After 68 weeks, participants receiving semaglutide experienced an average body-weight reduction of approximately 14.9%, compared with 2.4% in the placebo group (Wilding). To put that into perspective, an individual weighing 230 pounds could experience an average reduction of approximately 34 pounds, although individual responses vary considerably.
These findings are especially meaningful when considering how difficult it can be for individuals to maintain substantial weight loss over extended periods. However, semaglutide is not without limitations, as gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation, are among the most commonly reported adverse effects. More serious complications are less common but must also be considered when evaluating treatment suitability. Additionally, discontinuing treatment frequently results in substantial weight regain, highlighting the importance of having a long-term weight-management strategy rather than viewing the medication as a temporary solution that permanently resolves obesity.
Tirzepatide: Targeting Two Hormonal Pathways
Following the success of semaglutide, researchers began investigating whether activating multiple hormonal pathways could produce even greater improvements in weight management. Tirzepatide, sold under the brand names Mounjaro and Zepbound, activates both GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptors, commonly called GIP receptors. These pathways influence glucose regulation, appetite, and energy balance, and targeting both receptors can produce particularly substantial reductions in body weight.
In the SURMOUNT-1 trial, Jastreboff and colleagues investigated tirzepatide in 2,539 adults with obesity, or with overweight and at least one weight-related complication. After 72 weeks, participants receiving the highest studied dose experienced an average body-weight reduction of approximately 20.9%, compared with 3.1% in the placebo group (Jastreboff). For someone weighing 250 pounds, that percentage would represent approximately 52 pounds of weight loss, which is an extraordinary outcome for a nonsurgical intervention.
Although tirzepatide has demonstrated impressive results, it's important not to assume that it is universally superior for every individual. Treatment decisions depend on medical history, tolerability, contraindications, access, and individual responses. Furthermore, substantial reductions in body weight do not automatically mean that all the weight lost consists of body fat, which introduces another important consideration for individuals interested in preserving muscle mass and physical performance.
Retatrutide: The Next Generation?
Retatrutide, sometimes informally referred to as RETA, has generated considerable attention because it targets three hormonal receptors rather than one or two. Specifically, retatrutide activates GLP-1, GIP, and glucagon receptors. Although some people have begun referring to retatrutide as a "GLP-3," this is not technically accurate, as the drug is better described as a triple receptor agonist. The addition of glucagon receptor activity is particularly interesting because glucagon signaling may influence energy expenditure and metabolism in addition to the appetite-related effects associated with the other pathways.
In a phase 2 clinical trial published in 2023, Jastreboff and colleagues examined retatrutide in adults with obesity. At the highest studied dose, participants experienced an average body-weight reduction of approximately 24.2% after 48 weeks (Jastreboff). These findings attracted considerable attention, although comparisons between separate trials should be interpreted cautiously because study populations, treatment durations, and methodologies differ. Subsequent phase 3 investigations have expanded the evidence base, but retatrutide's regulatory status and complete long-term safety profile should be confirmed against current official information before considering clinical use.
What interests me most about these medications is how rapidly obesity treatment has progressed. We've moved from interventions that generally produced relatively modest average weight reductions to medications capable of helping some individuals lose a substantial percentage of their starting body weight. Nevertheless, greater weight loss does not automatically translate into better overall health outcomes for every individual, and the long-term implications of these treatments deserve just as much attention as their effectiveness.
Are GLP-1 Medications Safe?
Given how quickly these medications have become popular, I think it's reasonable to question whether their effectiveness comes at the expense of safety. Fortunately, the available clinical evidence is generally reassuring for FDA-approved medications such as semaglutide and tirzepatide when prescribed appropriately. These medications have been investigated in large randomized controlled trials involving thousands of participants, and although no medication is entirely risk-free, their safety profiles are reasonably well characterized. For appropriately selected patients, the benefits can substantially outweigh the potential risks, particularly when considering the long-term health consequences associated with obesity.
The most frequently reported adverse effects involve the gastrointestinal system, with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation being relatively common, particularly when treatment begins or doses increase. For many individuals, these symptoms improve with time, although some experience persistent discomfort or discontinue treatment because of adverse effects. More serious complications, including gallbladder problems and pancreatitis, are less common but remain important considerations. Certain medical histories, including personal or family histories of medullary thyroid carcinoma or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, also represent contraindications for these medications, making appropriate medical screening and monitoring essential.
There are still limitations to what we know about extremely rare adverse events and outcomes associated with decades of treatment, but uncertainty regarding some long-term outcomes should not be confused with evidence that these medications are broadly unsafe. In my opinion, the relevant question isn't simply whether a medication has potential side effects, but whether its expected benefits outweigh those risks for a particular individual. Based on the available evidence, semaglutide and tirzepatide can be valuable options for people who have struggled to achieve meaningful weight loss through conventional approaches, provided they meet the appropriate medical criteria and receive professional guidance.
The Muscle-Loss Concern With Weight-Loss Peptides
One of the most important considerations surrounding these medications, particularly for individuals interested in strength and hypertrophy, is the potential loss of lean body mass during weight reduction. When someone loses a substantial amount of weight, they generally lose a combination of fat mass and fat-free mass. Fat-free mass includes skeletal muscle, but it also includes water, organs, connective tissue, and other nonfat components. This distinction is important because changes in lean mass are not necessarily equivalent to changes in skeletal muscle tissue, even though the terms are frequently used interchangeably in discussions about weight loss.
Substantial weight loss can create conditions that make muscle preservation more difficult, particularly when individuals consume insufficient protein or fail to engage in resistance training. The concern is not necessarily that GLP-1 medications directly cause muscle deterioration, but rather that rapid or substantial reductions in energy intake can increase the likelihood of losing muscle alongside body fat. Someone might experience impressive reductions in body weight while simultaneously losing strength, muscle mass, or physical performance if their nutrition and training are poorly managed.
Fortunately, the same strategies commonly recommended for muscle preservation during conventional dieting remain applicable. Resistance training provides a stimulus for maintaining skeletal muscle, while adequate dietary protein supports muscle protein synthesis and recovery. The precise amount of protein required depends on several factors, including body composition, training status, energy intake, and individual goals, although relatively high protein intakes may be particularly beneficial for resistance-trained individuals undergoing weight loss.
I wouldn't interpret the possibility of lean-mass reductions as a reason to avoid medically appropriate weight-loss medications. Instead, I think it reinforces why medication and lifestyle interventions should be viewed as complementary rather than competing strategies. Someone who loses 50 pounds while maintaining their strength, improving their cardiovascular fitness, and establishing sustainable dietary habits is likely in a much better position than someone who focuses exclusively on reducing the number on the scale. Weight loss can be an important component of improving health, but body composition and physical function deserve consideration as well.
BPC-157: The So-Called Wolverine Peptide
While weight-loss medications have become increasingly established in clinical medicine, peptides marketed for injury recovery have generated considerable attention among athletes and recreational lifters. Perhaps the most recognizable is BPC-157, often referred to as the "Wolverine peptide" because of its supposed ability to accelerate tissue healing. BPC-157 is a synthetic peptide consisting of 15 amino acids, and its name is derived from "body protection compound." Much of its early research focused on gastrointestinal protection and tissue repair, although researchers eventually began investigating its potential effects on other tissues, including tendons, ligaments, and skeletal muscle.
Some animal investigations have reported improvements in healing-related outcomes following BPC-157 administration, with proposed mechanisms involving inflammatory signaling, vascular responses, and pathways associated with cellular growth and tissue repair. These findings have understandably attracted interest, particularly because tendon and ligament injuries can be frustratingly slow to recover from. However, observing improvements in animal models does not establish that a compound will produce the same effects in humans, especially when the doses, administration methods, and experimental conditions may differ substantially from real-world use.
One particularly interesting investigation examined the relationship between BPC-157 and growth hormone receptor expression in tendon fibroblasts. In the study titled "Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 enhances the growth hormone receptor expression in tendon fibroblasts," Chang and colleagues investigated how BPC-157 influenced growth hormone receptor signaling in tendon cells. Their findings suggested that BPC-157 could enhance growth hormone receptor expression and influence downstream signaling associated with cellular proliferation (Chang). This is an interesting potential mechanism because tendon healing involves complex interactions between cells, extracellular matrix proteins, and various growth-related signaling pathways.
However, the study provides preclinical evidence that BPC-157 can influence specific cellular processes relevant to tendon biology, rather than demonstrating that injecting BPC-157 accelerates tendon healing in humans. Other preclinical investigations have explored vascular responses and blood vessel formation, but the Chang study should not be used as direct evidence for claims about increased angiogenesis. Although these mechanisms are worth investigating, there is a substantial difference between observing favorable cellular responses and demonstrating clinically meaningful improvements in human injury recovery.
What Does the Human Evidence Show?
Despite the widespread discussion surrounding BPC-157, human research remains extremely limited. A small number of preliminary human reports have explored outcomes such as musculoskeletal pain and other clinical applications, but these investigations generally lack the sample sizes, methodological rigor, and appropriate control groups needed to establish effectiveness. Without well-controlled trials, it becomes difficult to determine whether reported improvements result from the peptide itself, natural recovery, concurrent treatments, or placebo effects.
Consider someone who has experienced shoulder discomfort for several months and decides to begin using BPC-157. Around the same time, they modify their training, reduce aggravating exercises, and become more consistent with their rehabilitation program. After several weeks, their symptoms improve considerably, and they naturally attribute the improvement to BPC-157. While it's possible that the peptide contributed, it's equally possible that the improvement resulted from changes in training load, spontaneous recovery, or several factors acting together. Without an appropriate comparison group, we simply cannot determine what caused the improvement.
This is why anecdotal success stories, regardless of how convincing they may sound, cannot replace randomized controlled trials. I've always found the biological mechanisms behind BPC-157 interesting, particularly given how challenging tendon and ligament rehabilitation can be, but I wouldn't recommend a compound simply because its proposed mechanism makes sense. We need evidence demonstrating that the intervention meaningfully improves outcomes in humans, ideally while also establishing appropriate dosing and long-term safety.
BPC-157 is not an FDA-approved treatment, and products obtained through unregulated sources introduce additional concerns regarding purity, contamination, dosing, and product identity. For competitive athletes, BPC-157 is also prohibited under anti-doping regulations. Until substantially stronger human evidence becomes available, I believe progressive rehabilitation, appropriate load management, and individualized medical care remain more defensible approaches to injury recovery.
Anti-Aging Peptides: Can We Actually Slow the Aging Process?
Weight loss and injury recovery are relatively tangible goals, whereas aging is considerably more complicated. Over the past several years, peptides marketed for longevity have attracted increasing attention, often accompanied by claims that they can improve cellular health, reverse biological aging, or extend lifespan. Among the compounds frequently discussed are epitalon and MOTS-c, both of which have generated interest because of their potential involvement in biological processes associated with aging.
Although these substances are often grouped together under the broad category of anti-aging peptides, their proposed mechanisms differ considerably. More importantly, neither has the same level of supporting human clinical evidence as established GLP-1 medications. Much of the enthusiasm surrounding these compounds comes from laboratory findings and animal experiments, which can be useful for generating hypotheses but cannot establish that a treatment meaningfully improves longevity in humans.
Epitalon and Telomeres
Epitalon is a synthetic tetrapeptide, meaning it consists of four amino acids. Much of the interest surrounding epitalon comes from its proposed relationship with telomeres and telomerase. Telomeres are protective structures located at the ends of chromosomes that help maintain genomic stability during cellular division. As cells divide, telomeres generally become shorter, and telomere dysfunction is associated with several aspects of cellular aging.
Telomerase is an enzyme capable of maintaining or extending telomeric DNA in certain cellular contexts. Because of this relationship, researchers have investigated whether influencing telomerase activity could affect aging-related processes, with some experimental research suggesting that epitalon may influence telomerase activity and cellular behavior. Other investigations, particularly from a relatively limited group of researchers, have reported potentially favorable effects on longevity-related outcomes in experimental models.
Although these findings are interesting, cellular aging is extraordinarily complex and cannot be reduced to telomere length alone. Changes in telomerase activity do not automatically translate into improved health or increased lifespan, and excessive telomerase activity can be relevant to cancer biology, making simplistic claims about increasing telomerase particularly problematic. Most importantly, there is insufficient high-quality human evidence demonstrating that epitalon meaningfully extends lifespan or improves long-term health outcomes.
I understand why a compound that supposedly influences cellular aging would attract attention, particularly when the possibility of living longer and remaining healthier sounds so appealing. However, I think we need to be careful about interpreting changes in biological markers as evidence of meaningful improvements in health. At present, claims that epitalon can reliably reverse aging in humans are not supported by robust clinical research.
MOTS-c and Metabolic Health
MOTS-c is a mitochondrial-derived peptide that has attracted research interest because of its potential involvement in metabolic regulation and cellular stress responses. Mitochondria are commonly described as the energy-producing structures within cells, although their functions extend well beyond ATP production. They also participate in signaling, metabolic regulation, and responses to physiological stress, which makes them particularly interesting when studying aging and metabolic health.
Research involving MOTS-c has explored its relationship with glucose metabolism, insulin sensitivity, and exercise-related adaptations. Some experimental investigations suggest that MOTS-c may influence pathways involved in metabolic homeostasis and cellular energy regulation, generating interest in whether the peptide might eventually have therapeutic applications for metabolic dysfunction or age-related physiological changes.
However, much of this enthusiasm is based on preclinical evidence. Demonstrating that a peptide influences metabolism in experimental models is not equivalent to showing that administering it improves health, exercise performance, or longevity in humans. Appropriate dosing, long-term safety, and meaningful clinical outcomes remain insufficiently established, which is why I would currently view MOTS-c as an interesting research compound rather than an evidence-based anti-aging intervention.
What About NAD+?
Although NAD+ is frequently discussed alongside longevity peptides, it is important to clarify that NAD+ is not technically a peptide. Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, or NAD+, is a coenzyme involved in numerous cellular processes, including energy metabolism and redox reactions. NAD+ also participates in pathways associated with DNA repair and cellular signaling, and because its availability and metabolism can change with aging, researchers have investigated whether increasing NAD+ levels might influence age-related physiological outcomes.
This has contributed to the popularity of NAD+ supplements, injections, and intravenous infusions, as well as precursor compounds such as nicotinamide riboside and nicotinamide mononucleotide. However, increasing a biological marker does not necessarily produce meaningful improvements in health. Even if an intervention successfully increases NAD+ availability, this does not establish that it improves physical performance, prevents disease, or extends lifespan.
Human investigations have produced mixed and generally limited evidence regarding clinically meaningful benefits, and the research is still developing. I think NAD+ is another good example of how identifying an interesting biological pathway can generate considerable enthusiasm before we actually know whether manipulating that pathway produces meaningful improvements in human health.
The Bigger Picture: Peptides and a Holistic Approach to Health
After reviewing these compounds, I think it's important to discuss something that can easily get lost in conversations about pharmaceutical advancements and emerging biotechnology. Improving one physiological outcome does not necessarily mean improving overall health, and while I believe modern medications can be incredibly valuable, I also think we need to consider how they fit into someone's lifestyle rather than evaluating them in isolation.
Semaglutide and tirzepatide can produce substantial reductions in body weight, and for many individuals, these changes may meaningfully improve metabolic health and reduce obesity-related risks. I don't believe these medications should be dismissed simply because they make weight loss easier, and I would encourage individuals who have consistently struggled with weight management to consider discussing them with their healthcare provider. Obesity is influenced by numerous biological, environmental, and behavioral factors, and reducing treatment to a question of willpower ignores much of what we understand about appetite regulation and weight management.
For someone who has repeatedly struggled to lose weight, a medication that reduces hunger and makes dietary adherence easier may provide an opportunity to achieve improvements that previously felt unattainable. Given the generally reassuring safety profiles of approved GLP-1-based medications in appropriately selected patients, I believe their use can be justified when the expected benefits outweigh the potential risks. I don't view using medication to improve your health as cheating, nor do I believe that everyone should be expected to achieve the same results through diet and exercise alone.
At the same time, I would encourage anyone considering these medications to think about what their overall approach to health will look like during treatment and afterward. Someone could lose a substantial amount of weight while remaining physically inactive, consuming a nutritionally inadequate diet, sleeping poorly, and maintaining relatively low levels of muscular strength. Their body weight might improve, but several important aspects of health could remain unchanged, which is why I believe sustainable habits should remain a priority regardless of whether someone is using medication.
Resistance training can help preserve skeletal muscle during weight loss while improving strength, bone health, and physical function. Adequate dietary protein and overall nutritional quality support recovery, tissue maintenance, and normal physiological functioning, while aerobic exercise improves cardiorespiratory fitness and contributes to cardiovascular and metabolic health. Sleep, stress management, and meaningful social relationships also influence aspects of health that cannot be measured simply by stepping on a scale. None of these behaviors becomes less important because someone is taking medication, and I would argue that the substantial weight loss made possible by these treatments creates an opportunity to establish habits that support better long-term outcomes.
Another consideration that I think deserves more attention is what happens when treatment ends. Research has demonstrated that substantial weight regain is common after discontinuing GLP-1 medications, which makes sense when considering that the biological mechanisms influencing hunger and appetite do not necessarily disappear simply because someone has lost weight. Once treatment stops, appetite may increase, making weight maintenance considerably more challenging, particularly if someone hasn't developed habits that support their new body weight.
For this reason, I think individuals should have a long-term weight-management plan before beginning treatment rather than assuming that the weight they lose will automatically remain off after discontinuation. That plan should include sustainable dietary habits, regular physical activity, resistance training, and ongoing monitoring of body weight and health-related outcomes. However, it's also important to recognize that healthy habits do not guarantee that weight regain can be prevented after stopping medication, and for some individuals, continuing treatment may be the most appropriate long-term strategy.
I don't think someone should view continued medication as a failure, especially when we routinely use medications to manage other chronic health conditions. If a medication remains effective, well tolerated, and medically indicated, continued use may be reasonable. Ultimately, I support the appropriate use of GLP-1-based medications for individuals struggling with weight management, provided they understand the potential risks, work with their healthcare provider, and approach treatment as part of a broader, long-term health strategy. The objective shouldn't simply be to lose weight while taking medication, but to improve health in a way that can be maintained, whether that involves continued treatment or a carefully planned transition away from it.
I think this same perspective is useful when considering the other peptides discussed throughout the article. Even if future research demonstrates that a particular compound can accelerate tendon recovery, that wouldn't eliminate the importance of appropriate training progression, rehabilitation, and management of repetitive physical stress. Similarly, although researchers continue investigating compounds that influence cellular aging pathways, we already have substantial evidence supporting the health benefits of regular physical activity, adequate sleep, nutritious dietary patterns, and meaningful social relationships.
These behaviors influence numerous physiological systems simultaneously, and although they may not be as exciting as a new medication promising dramatic results, their importance shouldn't be underestimated simply because they're familiar. I don't think the goal should be to avoid medical advancements or insist that every health improvement must come exclusively from lifestyle changes. Instead, I believe we should embrace interventions with demonstrated benefits when appropriate while recognizing that no single compound can address every dimension of health.
Final Thoughts
After looking through the research on these compounds, I think the most important thing to recognize is just how much the quality of evidence varies between different peptides. Semaglutide and tirzepatide have demonstrated substantial effectiveness for weight management in large randomized controlled trials, and their generally reassuring safety profiles make them valuable treatment options for appropriately selected patients. Retatrutide has also produced impressive clinical trial findings, although its role in medical practice depends on continued evaluation of its efficacy, safety, and regulatory status.
I'm particularly supportive of the appropriate use of GLP-1-based medications for individuals who have consistently struggled with weight loss, especially when they're willing to establish sustainable habits alongside treatment. I think there's a tendency to view medications and lifestyle changes as opposing approaches, when in reality they can complement one another. Someone who uses medication to improve appetite regulation while also becoming more physically active, improving their diet, and preserving muscle mass may be able to achieve health improvements that were previously difficult to maintain.
When looking at compounds such as BPC-157, epitalon, and MOTS-c, I'm much more hesitant to recommend their use because we simply don't have the same quality of human evidence. The research surrounding BPC-157 includes interesting findings related to tissue repair and cellular signaling, including the work of Chang and colleagues, but these findings don't establish that the compound meaningfully accelerates injury recovery in humans. Similarly, the proposed mechanisms behind epitalon and MOTS-c are scientifically interesting, although there is insufficient clinical evidence demonstrating that either compound improves longevity or produces meaningful anti-aging benefits.
I think it's understandable that people are excited about these substances, particularly when they promise solutions to problems that can be frustratingly difficult to address through conventional approaches. However, we need to be careful about assuming that because certain peptides produce remarkable weight-loss outcomes, other peptides must be equally effective for healing, performance, or longevity. Each compound needs to be evaluated individually, and recommendations should be based on demonstrated outcomes in humans rather than biological plausibility, animal experiments, or personal testimonials alone.
As research continues, I wouldn't be surprised if additional peptides eventually become valuable therapeutic tools. Pharmaceutical research has already transformed the treatment of obesity, and there is certainly potential for future advancements in other areas of medicine. However, regardless of how effective these interventions become, I believe the fundamentals of health will remain relevant. Exercise, nutrition, sleep, and sustainable behavioral habits may not generate the same excitement as emerging pharmaceutical treatments, but they remain essential components of long-term physical and psychological well-being.
Ultimately, I'm optimistic about the future of peptides and the possibilities they present, but I think that optimism needs to be accompanied by an appropriate level of skepticism. We should be willing to embrace treatments that have demonstrated meaningful benefits while remaining cautious about compounds whose popularity has progressed faster than the science supporting them. The goal is to use the best available evidence to make informed decisions about our health, without losing sight of the everyday behaviors that contribute to our well-being in the first place.
References:
1. Wilding, J. P. H., et al. (2021). Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, 384(11), 989-1002. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2032183
2. Jastreboff, A. M., et al. (2022). Tirzepatide Once Weekly for the Treatment of Obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, 387(3), 205-216. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2206038
3. Jastreboff, A. M., et al. (2023). Triple–Hormone-Receptor Agonist Retatrutide for Obesity — A Phase 2 Trial. New England Journal of Medicine, 389(6), 514-526. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2301972
4. Chang, C.-H., et al. (2014). Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 Enhances the Growth Hormone Receptor Expression in Tendon Fibroblasts. Molecules, 19(11), 19066-19077. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules191119066