ladyj779 said:
aepower2016 said:
ladyj779 said:
aepower2016 said:
lessthanhalf said:
Setting the GLP drugs aside, the great majority of other peptides are sadly short on solid scientific evidence that they either work or are safe.
What bothers me about "protocols" is that the ones in circulation, the ones people commonly use and mention, were simply dreamt up by somebody selling peptides, possibly with a bit of underlying theory or scientific principle, or else by weightlifting folklore, and none of them rest on real science ( like actual human clinical studies.)
The ss-31 then mots-c protocol is among the most popular. Both are genuinely interesting peptides with real effects, but the trouble is that neither is proven useful in humans for treating obesity, aging or general health. Ss-31 carries approval for a rare mitochondrial genetic disorder, and mots-c has a single human study covering a modified form of it. As for using them in combination or in sequence, there is no research whatsoever. Yet once people see a "protocol" exists, their thinking is strongly biased toward treating it as a proven, accepted therapy. Usually these peptides probably will not do harm, and may even help, but with no research behind them there is zero way to know whether rare severe side effects exist, or effects that only surface after long term use.
Nothing could have put it better than that. Anecdotal reports do have a place in my view, but the safety and efficacy of whichever pep is in question has to be established by clinical trials first. Research has documented the placebo effect thoroughly, and for me that ranks among the biggest weaknesses of going on anecdote alone. When other important variables went unrecorded, working out whether a pep genuinely helped the reported outcomes is often close to impossible.
Was reta behind the entire weight loss, or was it the person dropping into a severe calorie deficit while hugely ramping up how much they moved each day? Out of those three, which one did the heavy lifting? If all of them began at once, there is simply no way to say.
Reading anecdotes is worthwhile, just do it with a large dose of caution.
Nothing drives weight loss except a calorie deficit
Many peps that people take have never been through clinical trials. Which is exactly why anecdotal accounts, and this message board, matter.
Eta: I suppose lipo could drive weight loss, or something like amputation...
That much is true. My argument, though, is that the deficit can be reached in a whole variety of ways. Was putting yourself in a caloric deficit deliberate, or did you simply raise your energy expenditure?
ladyj779 said:
aepower2016 said:
lessthanhalf said:
Setting the GLP drugs aside, the great majority of other peptides are sadly short on solid scientific evidence that they either work or are safe.
What bothers me about "protocols" is that the ones in circulation, the ones people commonly use and mention, were simply dreamt up by somebody selling peptides, possibly with a bit of underlying theory or scientific principle, or else by weightlifting folklore, and none of them rest on real science ( like actual human clinical studies.)
The ss-31 then mots-c protocol is among the most popular. Both are genuinely interesting peptides with real effects, but the trouble is that neither is proven useful in humans for treating obesity, aging or general health. Ss-31 carries approval for a rare mitochondrial genetic disorder, and mots-c has a single human study covering a modified form of it. As for using them in combination or in sequence, there is no research whatsoever. Yet once people see a "protocol" exists, their thinking is strongly biased toward treating it as a proven, accepted therapy. Usually these peptides probably will not do harm, and may even help, but with no research behind them there is zero way to know whether rare severe side effects exist, or effects that only surface after long term use.
Nothing could have put it better than that. Anecdotal reports do have a place in my view, but the safety and efficacy of whichever pep is in question has to be established by clinical trials first. Research has documented the placebo effect thoroughly, and for me that ranks among the biggest weaknesses of going on anecdote alone. When other important variables went unrecorded, working out whether a pep genuinely helped the reported outcomes is often close to impossible.
Was reta behind the entire weight loss, or was it the person dropping into a severe calorie deficit while hugely ramping up how much they moved each day? Out of those three, which one did the heavy lifting? If all of them began at once, there is simply no way to say.
Reading anecdotes is worthwhile, just do it with a large dose of caution.
Nothing drives weight loss except a calorie deficit
Many peps that people take have never been through clinical trials. Which is exactly why anecdotal accounts, and this message board, matter.
Eta: I suppose lipo could drive weight loss, or something like amputation...
I agree that where research is thin, anecdotes help, though they need a big dose of caution. A guide for a peptide that has never been studied in human trials at all is extremely risky. It amounts to telling people "trust me bro". People posting their own protocols is something I fully support, it is a great idea, since we are all lab rats after all. But building a "guide" moves away from what this forum is about.
Raise your energy expenditure and the calorie deficit follows
Intentional or not, whether it comes from taking less in or putting more out, it is the deficit that produces weight loss
Take glp, run marathons, fast, or go through a pack and a half of cigarettes a day — either way, the weight comes off through deficit
aepower2016 said:
ladyj779 said:
aepower2016 said:
lessthanhalf said:
Setting the GLP drugs aside, the great majority of other peptides are sadly short on solid scientific evidence that they either work or are safe.
What bothers me about "protocols" is that the ones in circulation, the ones people commonly use and mention, were simply dreamt up by somebody selling peptides, possibly with a bit of underlying theory or scientific principle, or else by weightlifting folklore, and none of them rest on real science ( like actual human clinical studies.)
The ss-31 then mots-c protocol is among the most popular. Both are genuinely interesting peptides with real effects, but the trouble is that neither is proven useful in humans for treating obesity, aging or general health. Ss-31 carries approval for a rare mitochondrial genetic disorder, and mots-c has a single human study covering a modified form of it. As for using them in combination or in sequence, there is no research whatsoever. Yet once people see a "protocol" exists, their thinking is strongly biased toward treating it as a proven, accepted therapy. Usually these peptides probably will not do harm, and may even help, but with no research behind them there is zero way to know whether rare severe side effects exist, or effects that only surface after long term use.
Nothing could have put it better than that. Anecdotal reports do have a place in my view, but the safety and efficacy of whichever pep is in question has to be established by clinical trials first. Research has documented the placebo effect thoroughly, and for me that ranks among the biggest weaknesses of going on anecdote alone. When other important variables went unrecorded, working out whether a pep genuinely helped the reported outcomes is often close to impossible.
Was reta behind the entire weight loss, or was it the person dropping into a severe calorie deficit while hugely ramping up how much they moved each day? Out of those three, which one did the heavy lifting? If all of them began at once, there is simply no way to say.
Reading anecdotes is worthwhile, just do it with a large dose of caution.
Nothing drives weight loss except a calorie deficit
Many peps that people take have never been through clinical trials. Which is exactly why anecdotal accounts, and this message board, matter.
Eta: I suppose lipo could drive weight loss, or something like amputation...
That much is true. My argument, though, is that the deficit can be reached in a whole variety of ways. Was putting yourself in a caloric deficit deliberate, or did you simply raise your energy expenditure?
ladyj779 said:
aepower2016 said:
lessthanhalf said:
Setting the GLP drugs aside, the great majority of other peptides are sadly short on solid scientific evidence that they either work or are safe.
What bothers me about "protocols" is that the ones in circulation, the ones people commonly use and mention, were simply dreamt up by somebody selling peptides, possibly with a bit of underlying theory or scientific principle, or else by weightlifting folklore, and none of them rest on real science ( like actual human clinical studies.)
The ss-31 then mots-c protocol is among the most popular. Both are genuinely interesting peptides with real effects, but the trouble is that neither is proven useful in humans for treating obesity, aging or general health. Ss-31 carries approval for a rare mitochondrial genetic disorder, and mots-c has a single human study covering a modified form of it. As for using them in combination or in sequence, there is no research whatsoever. Yet once people see a "protocol" exists, their thinking is strongly biased toward treating it as a proven, accepted therapy. Usually these peptides probably will not do harm, and may even help, but with no research behind them there is zero way to know whether rare severe side effects exist, or effects that only surface after long term use.
Nothing could have put it better than that. Anecdotal reports do have a place in my view, but the safety and efficacy of whichever pep is in question has to be established by clinical trials first. Research has documented the placebo effect thoroughly, and for me that ranks among the biggest weaknesses of going on anecdote alone. When other important variables went unrecorded, working out whether a pep genuinely helped the reported outcomes is often close to impossible.
Was reta behind the entire weight loss, or was it the person dropping into a severe calorie deficit while hugely ramping up how much they moved each day? Out of those three, which one did the heavy lifting? If all of them began at once, there is simply no way to say.
Reading anecdotes is worthwhile, just do it with a large dose of caution.
Nothing drives weight loss except a calorie deficit
Many peps that people take have never been through clinical trials. Which is exactly why anecdotal accounts, and this message board, matter.
Eta: I suppose lipo could drive weight loss, or something like amputation...
I agree that where research is thin, anecdotes help, though they need a big dose of caution. A guide for a peptide that has never been studied in human trials at all is extremely risky. It amounts to telling people "trust me bro". People posting their own protocols is something I fully support, it is a great idea, since we are all lab rats after all. But building a "guide" moves away from what this forum is about.
You have me wrong: creating a guide is silly, as I said earlier, because people won’t use the search function
And language is a funny thing, because you read guide as a formal, authoritative sort of document when in reality it would just be a few more threads on a message board
that nobody would search for.
. 
.