390120
Explorer
I'd like to hear from anyone who has injected SLU-PP-332.
Were the effects noticeable?
Were the effects noticeable?
Injectable SLU-PP-332: What Have Users Noticed?
- Thread starter 390120
- Start date
FartfulCodger
Explorer
I'm wondering whether you managed to get going with it. What method did you use for reconstitution?
What made you pick SLU-PP-332 over the other peptides used for weight loss? STG doesn’t permit any talk of it in their channels, and DMSO—the solvent typically suggested for reconstitution—is an industrial solvent. On top of that, newer studies suggest SLUPP may act as an angiogenitor.
marraqy
Explorer
I've spent a good amount of time digging into SLU-PP-332, and after going through countless accounts something doesn't sit right with me.
The way users describe that crushing tiredness, the leaden, drained sensation that lands late in the day, doesn't line up with the mechanism SLU-PP-332 is supposed to have. Its action runs via ERRa, which reshapes muscle fibers genetically in favor of oxidative metabolism. That's a gradual, transcription-driven adjustment, not something that slams your energy system the way an acute metabolic stressor would.
Now look at AICAR. It activates AMPK, which essentially pushes the body into a fake energy-deficit condition. Heavy legs, exhaustion, an evening collapse, those are classic AICAR hallmarks. The two profiles diverge far too much for the overlap to be chance.
Honestly, I have to ask whether part of what's being sold as SLU-PP-332 is really AICAR, or perhaps a blend of the two. Either way the endurance upside would still be there, so the average user would have no reason to suspect anything or raise questions.
Has anyone here actually sent a batch off for third-party testing? The side-effect pattern showing up in these reports is far too uniform to just wave off.
The way users describe that crushing tiredness, the leaden, drained sensation that lands late in the day, doesn't line up with the mechanism SLU-PP-332 is supposed to have. Its action runs via ERRa, which reshapes muscle fibers genetically in favor of oxidative metabolism. That's a gradual, transcription-driven adjustment, not something that slams your energy system the way an acute metabolic stressor would.
Now look at AICAR. It activates AMPK, which essentially pushes the body into a fake energy-deficit condition. Heavy legs, exhaustion, an evening collapse, those are classic AICAR hallmarks. The two profiles diverge far too much for the overlap to be chance.
Honestly, I have to ask whether part of what's being sold as SLU-PP-332 is really AICAR, or perhaps a blend of the two. Either way the endurance upside would still be there, so the average user would have no reason to suspect anything or raise questions.
Has anyone here actually sent a batch off for third-party testing? The side-effect pattern showing up in these reports is far too uniform to just wave off.
For more than a month I took the oral drops of SLU-PP-332. The only thing I could detect was a minor, placebo-ish boost to my cardio. After that I picked up 20 vials of the injectable form, and WOW. Calling it 'exercise in a bottle' is accurate.
My first dose was 250 mcg. Within roughly 15 minutes my heart rate shot from around 74 bpm to 101 bpm (that caught me completely off guard). Later it climbed in waves, moving between 82 and 96, and this repeated 3–4 times across the following 1.5 hours. From what I understand, that sort of spike can occur during the first few injections. Whether I actually liked experimenting with it, I'm not sure, lol. next time I might go down to 100mcg...
I looked into this, and your hunch might be right. What I came across is that taking SLU-PP-332 by mouth does not work—it isn't orally bioavailable. The chemist behind it created a different compound, SLU-PP-915, specifically to get around that issue. Research on it is ongoing, though the early signs look good.
As for the injectable form, the instructions call for dissolving it in DMSO, PEG400, or a mix of the two. That detail was enough to put me off trying it.
JoonyO
Explorer
Last Oct I picked up a kit, and when I tried reconstituting one of the vials, it wouldn't go into solution properly with BAC water. At the time I went off what some peptide vendor's site suggested (can't remember which one anymore) — BAC water, same as I'd do for nearly any pep. Ugh. And naturally somebody had to toss in a line like, "if you don't even know how to recon it right, you're too stupid to be using it"...roughly that.
I had looked into it beforehand, but clearly not deeply enough to find out others were hitting the same wall. My supplier told me to go with acetic acid. Other folks mentioned DMSO. For now the rest of them are sitting in the freezer until I feel sure about how to handle it. YMMV
DunningKruger
Explorer
From what I gather, going transdermal (using DMSO as the carrier) is the recommended route for SLUPP. Because it's strongly hydrophobic, mixing it with bac water causes it to precipitate out. Injecting it is something I'd steer clear of entirely.
I've come across assertions that taking it orally gives 40% bioavailability. Even if that holds up, it's not awful—but there are superior alternatives...such as simply working out.
I've come across assertions that taking it orally gives 40% bioavailability. Even if that holds up, it's not awful—but there are superior alternatives...such as simply working out.
DMSO's problem is that it's a solvent used in industry. Anything in that vial, no matter what it is, gets pulled through the skin and into your blood. It doesn't matter what the substance is, it goes in.DunningKruger said:
From what I gather, going transdermal (using DMSO as the carrier) is the recommended route for SLUPP. Because it's strongly hydrophobic, mixing it with bac water causes it to precipitate out. Injecting it is something I'd steer clear of entirely.
I've come across assertions that taking it orally gives 40% bioavailability. Even if that holds up, it's not awful—but there are superior alternatives...such as simply working out.
After reconstituting, I spotted tiny bits that hadn't dissolved in the vial. That got me thinking about filtration: if I run it through a filter, how much of the compound would be left behind as a percentage? I ran this question past Grok...JoonyO said:
Last Oct I picked up a kit, and when I tried reconstituting one of the vials, it wouldn't go into solution properly with BAC water. At the time I went off what some peptide vendor's site suggested (can't remember which one anymore) — BAC water, same as I'd do for nearly any pep. Ugh. And naturally somebody had to toss in a line like, "if you don't even know how to recon it right, you're too stupid to be using it"...roughly that.
Grok. generally less than 5–10% overall, and frequently nearer 2–5% when the particles really are "small"
- For instance:
Suppose you mixed a 5 mg vial using 2 ml of solvent and then pass it through a 4 mm filter — the filter retains 0.07 ml, which equals just 3.5% of the total volume (so roughly 3.5% of the dissolved peptide is lost).
≈ 3–8% combined (undissolved bits plus liquid left in the filter).
For most people, that is trivial next to the safety advantage of filtering out particles.
To cut down on the hold-up volume, I only perform an air purge.DjJoshua said:
After reconstituting, I spotted tiny bits that hadn't dissolved in the vial. That got me thinking about filtration: if I run it through a filter, how much of the compound would be left behind as a percentage? I ran this question past Grok...JoonyO said:
Last Oct I picked up a kit, and when I tried reconstituting one of the vials, it wouldn't go into solution properly with BAC water. At the time I went off what some peptide vendor's site suggested (can't remember which one anymore) — BAC water, same as I'd do for nearly any pep. Ugh. And naturally somebody had to toss in a line like, "if you don't even know how to recon it right, you're too stupid to be using it"...roughly that.
Grok. generally less than 5–10% overall, and frequently nearer 2–5% when the particles really are "small"
All told, a realistic loss with small particles:
- For instance:
Suppose you mixed a 5 mg vial using 2 ml of solvent and then pass it through a 4 mm filter — the filter retains 0.07 ml, which equals just 3.5% of the total volume (so roughly 3.5% of the dissolved peptide is lost).
≈ 3–8% combined (undissolved bits plus liquid left in the filter).
For most people, that is trivial next to the safety advantage of filtering out particles.
That said, whatever is left behind—TFA salts, filler, and so on—will be carried along with the peptide. It could be harmless, or it could matter.
After going back and forth with Grok for quite a while, here's the approach I landed on for when I eventually give it a go.DjJoshua said:
After reconstituting, I spotted tiny bits that hadn't dissolved in the vial. That got me thinking about filtration: if I run it through a filter, how much of the compound would be left behind as a percentage? I ran this question past Grok...JoonyO said:
Last Oct I picked up a kit, and when I tried reconstituting one of the vials, it wouldn't go into solution properly with BAC water. At the time I went off what some peptide vendor's site suggested (can't remember which one anymore) — BAC water, same as I'd do for nearly any pep. Ugh. And naturally somebody had to toss in a line like, "if you don't even know how to recon it right, you're too stupid to be using it"...roughly that.
Grok. generally less than 5–10% overall, and frequently nearer 2–5% when the particles really are "small"
All told, a realistic loss with small particles:
- For instance:
Suppose you mixed a 5 mg vial using 2 ml of solvent and then pass it through a 4 mm filter — the filter retains 0.07 ml, which equals just 3.5% of the total volume (so roughly 3.5% of the dissolved peptide is lost).
≈ 3–8% combined (undissolved bits plus liquid left in the filter).
For most people, that is trivial next to the safety advantage of filtering out particles.
Grok did bring that up while I was digging into it, but honestly, after that massive response from only 250mcg, I'm hesitant about pushing the strength higher lol.. still, thanks for the mixing details.ktg123 said:
After going back and forth with Grok for quite a while, here's the approach I landed on for when I eventually give it a go.DjJoshua said:
After reconstituting, I spotted tiny bits that hadn't dissolved in the vial. That got me thinking about filtration: if I run it through a filter, how much of the compound would be left behind as a percentage? I ran this question past Grok...JoonyO said:
Last Oct I picked up a kit, and when I tried reconstituting one of the vials, it wouldn't go into solution properly with BAC water. At the time I went off what some peptide vendor's site suggested (can't remember which one anymore) — BAC water, same as I'd do for nearly any pep. Ugh. And naturally somebody had to toss in a line like, "if you don't even know how to recon it right, you're too stupid to be using it"...roughly that.
Grok. generally less than 5–10% overall, and frequently nearer 2–5% when the particles really are "small"
All told, a realistic loss with small particles:
- For instance:
Suppose you mixed a 5 mg vial using 2 ml of solvent and then pass it through a 4 mm filter — the filter retains 0.07 ml, which equals just 3.5% of the total volume (so roughly 3.5% of the dissolved peptide is lost).
≈ 3–8% combined (undissolved bits plus liquid left in the filter).
For most people, that is trivial next to the safety advantage of filtering out particles.
View attachment 11239
390120
Explorer
I've attempted to reconstitute several vials, but each time I'm left with a cloudy mixture.
Into 1 sterile vial, I put 2mL of bac water.
Then I reconstituted the SLU vial using 0.5mL DMSO.
Following the reverse titration method, I drew up the DMSO and added it extremely slowly—one drop at a time, pausing about 20 seconds between drops while gently swirling—into the vial containing 2mL bac. Even so, it didn't work.
I burned through 5 vials this way, plus a huge amount of time.
Into 1 sterile vial, I put 2mL of bac water.
Then I reconstituted the SLU vial using 0.5mL DMSO.
Following the reverse titration method, I drew up the DMSO and added it extremely slowly—one drop at a time, pausing about 20 seconds between drops while gently swirling—into the vial containing 2mL bac. Even so, it didn't work.
I burned through 5 vials this way, plus a huge amount of time.
Peptidesearch
Explorer
Janoshik interview: SLU-PP-332 vials with no SLU left after lyophilization.#-janoshik-interview-on-slu-pp-332-vials-not-containing-slu-after-being-lyophilized
View: https://youtu.be/y6bVs5CFdAE?t=1078
View: https://youtu.be/y6bVs5CFdAE?t=1078
lessthanhalf
Explorer
When SLU and bam15 first came onto my radar, I spent some time digging into the literature. There is real scientific intrigue around both compounds, no question. That said, my honest read is that neither one is anywhere close to being appropriate for human trials or self-experimentation. The evidence base is thin—just a handful of foundational animal studies. Those results do sound compelling, I'll grant that, but we are still an enormous distance from establishing safety in people. Research on both is ongoing, though my suspicion is that the field will gravitate toward slu-pp-915 because of its superior bioavailability. The mechanism behind SLU is fascinating, yet it remains far from comprehensively characterized. Estrogen-related receptor biology is a relatively young area, and unforeseen downstream consequences seem quite plausible.
Dosing struck me as the biggest red flag. The mouse work used 50mg/kg delivered via intraperitoneal injection. Converting that roughly to human equivalents gives something in the neighborhood of 5mg/kg per dose—roughly 350mg for someone weighing 70 kg. Proper dose determination requires a phase 1 dose-ranging trial, so to be clear, I am not recommending anyone derive their dosing from this back-of-the-envelope math. Still, it strongly suggests that the amounts most people online describe taking are likely in placebo territory. My crude mouse-to-human conversion could be wrong, sure, but it is unlikely to be off by three orders of magnitude. As for the person who reported a heart rate increase from a microgram dose—I don't doubt they felt something real. But injecting a novel and potentially risky compound is more than enough to spike heart rate on its own, no pharmacological activity required. I don't mean that as a jab; it is simply a different reading of the same observation. The trouble with the doses I calculated—and bam15 is similar—is that they become prohibitively expensive, even assuming efficacy and no adverse effects. Bulk pricing runs around $30-50 per gram (non-sterile), which works out to roughly 10 doses for $30, and injectable formulations cost even more.
Solubility is another clear obstacle. You would need to dissolve it in DMSO or a comparable solvent before oral or injectable administration. Bioavailability is poor, though rodent studies did use oral dosing, so some fraction does get absorbed—they pre-dissolved it in solvents before oral delivery, however. DMSO is not considered safe for injection into humans. It probably won't kill you, and lab animals receive it routinely without researchers worrying it will confound their results, but that is not the same as a safety endorsement.
Dosing struck me as the biggest red flag. The mouse work used 50mg/kg delivered via intraperitoneal injection. Converting that roughly to human equivalents gives something in the neighborhood of 5mg/kg per dose—roughly 350mg for someone weighing 70 kg. Proper dose determination requires a phase 1 dose-ranging trial, so to be clear, I am not recommending anyone derive their dosing from this back-of-the-envelope math. Still, it strongly suggests that the amounts most people online describe taking are likely in placebo territory. My crude mouse-to-human conversion could be wrong, sure, but it is unlikely to be off by three orders of magnitude. As for the person who reported a heart rate increase from a microgram dose—I don't doubt they felt something real. But injecting a novel and potentially risky compound is more than enough to spike heart rate on its own, no pharmacological activity required. I don't mean that as a jab; it is simply a different reading of the same observation. The trouble with the doses I calculated—and bam15 is similar—is that they become prohibitively expensive, even assuming efficacy and no adverse effects. Bulk pricing runs around $30-50 per gram (non-sterile), which works out to roughly 10 doses for $30, and injectable formulations cost even more.
Solubility is another clear obstacle. You would need to dissolve it in DMSO or a comparable solvent before oral or injectable administration. Bioavailability is poor, though rodent studies did use oral dosing, so some fraction does get absorbed—they pre-dissolved it in solvents before oral delivery, however. DMSO is not considered safe for injection into humans. It probably won't kill you, and lab animals receive it routinely without researchers worrying it will confound their results, but that is not the same as a safety endorsement.
WolfPack2026
Explorer
I mixed 5mg of SLU into 2mL BAC, and right away it turned cloudy with little specks floating in it. I tried warming the vial in my hands and swirling it, but nothing changed. Then I sat the vial in warm water for roughly 10 seconds, which helped a bit, though the small specks were still there. I decided to go ahead and pin 10 units anyway. It stung for around 2 minutes, and now that a little over an hour has passed, I haven't noticed any other side effects.
DMSO works as a really powerful solvent, but since there's no way to guarantee it stays sterile, I'm reluctant to go that route. I'm aware it carries cellular toxicity effects, and while I'd guess the amount involved would be so tiny that any impact would be minimal, I don't want to take that chance.
Once I finished pinning, I stuck the vial in the fridge. Tonight after work, my plan is to let it come back up to temperature, then add another 2mL of BAC and observe what happens, unless someone else has a different suggestion.
DMSO works as a really powerful solvent, but since there's no way to guarantee it stays sterile, I'm reluctant to go that route. I'm aware it carries cellular toxicity effects, and while I'd guess the amount involved would be so tiny that any impact would be minimal, I don't want to take that chance.
Once I finished pinning, I stuck the vial in the fridge. Tonight after work, my plan is to let it come back up to temperature, then add another 2mL of BAC and observe what happens, unless someone else has a different suggestion.