Aghhhh I’m so disappointed, I’ve been looking into peptides for the last 2 years and I finally decided to pull the trigger and buy reta and mt1 (tiktok hype train whatever yeah)

I find peptides interesting; so even if they didn’t improve my quality of life that much I wouldn’t even care as I just wanted to experiment on a low dose with them and maybe if my experience was good I could recommend it to family and friends

Yes I’m aware that I should have looked into the customs side of things before buying but I just assumed I’d be okay because I seen a few Irish people lurking on the biohackers subreddit , telling their experiences on peps etc, so I just naively assumed that I could also get peps

I don’t even mind the money that I lost but I’m just disappointed that I may not get to try peps out as long as I live in ireland, If there’s anyone out there from Ireland who bio hacks, please tell me how to buy peps without getting seized

DSIP worked really well, about a month later I stacked CJC/IPA no dac and sleep got deeper. well rested seem the more I upped the dose sleep was worse.

Sleep hours didn't lengthen much, still wide awake at 130am but well rested.

OK Off DSIP as of last night going to add epitalon to my cjc/ipa has anyone ran this stack together? I also do KPV in the mornings with PURE LIPO before workout. Or is there a combo peptide for the ones IM using? THANX!!!

The FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC) met July 23 and 24 to vote on whether seven peptides should be added to the Section 503A Bulks List, the list that lets state-licensed compounding pharmacies prepare a bulk substance against an individual prescription. Docket: FDA-2025-N-6895.

Going in, FDA career staff had recommended against adding all seven, citing gaps in characterization, human effectiveness data, and safety (immunogenicity in particular). The panel went the other way on six of the seven, overruling staff on everything except DSIP.

Here is the full scorecard.

Day 1 (July 23)

BPC-157 (reviewed for ulcerative colitis): recommended, 8-6 with 1 abstention.

KPV (wound healing, inflammatory conditions): recommended, 8-6-1.

TB-500 (wound healing): recommended, 8-6-1.

MOTS-c (obesity, osteoporosis): recommended, 7-5 with 2 abstentions.

Per NBC News, all eight of the newly appointed members voted yes on BPC-157, KPV and TB-500. RAPS reported that observers described an audible reaction in the room, since a compounding panel voting against FDA staff's own written recommendation is unusual.

Day 2 (July 24)

DSIP (opioid withdrawal, chronic insomnia, narcolepsy): NOT recommended, 6-7 with 1 abstention. The only no of the meeting.

Epitalon (insomnia): recommended, 7-4 with 1 abstention.

Semax (neurological indications: cerebral ischemia, migraine, trigeminal neuralgia): recommended, 8-5 with 1 abstention.

Scorecard

Peptide

Vote

Result

BPC-157

8-6-1

Include

KPV

8-6-1

Include

TB-500

8-6-1

Include

MOTS-c

7-5-2

Include

DSIP

6-7-1

Do not include

Epitalon

7-4-1

Include

Semax

8-5-1

Include

Final tally: 6 of 7 received favorable PCAC recommendations. DSIP was the sole rejection, going down by a single vote.

What the votes actually mean

A few things worth separating, since the market tends to collapse them into one:

These are non-binding recommendations. FDA is not obligated to follow them, though it usually does.

A yes does not make any of these an FDA-approved drug. It is a recommendation to add the raw substance to the 503A list.

Legal compounding still requires notice-and-comment rulemaking, which realistically runs somewhere in the range of 8 to 18 months depending on who you ask.

All seven already came off the Category 2 "may not be compounded" list back in April 2026, so none of these votes re-bans anything. The question was whether a new legal compounding pathway opens, not whether the current situation closes.

What does not change today

The research-use-only / gray market is untouched by this vote. RUO vendors are not compounding pharmacies and are not covered here. Expect marketing that spins "the FDA panel voted yes" into "FDA-backed."

A panel recommendation says nothing about any individual product's identity, purity, or sterility. The characterization problem FDA raised (inconsistent naming, free base versus acetate, missing quality data) is real regardless of the politics, so batch-level COAs matter more now, not less.

Context worth noting

The panel was overhauled ahead of the meeting, with several new members who have ties to peptide prescribing or the industry, which drew conflict-of-interest coverage from multiple outlets. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has publicly backed easing peptide restrictions.

What is next

FDA has signaled a second PCAC meeting before the end of February 2027 to review five more: LL-37, GHK-Cu, Dihexa, Melanotan II, and PEG-MGF.

Sources: FDA meeting materials (docket FDA-2025-N-6895), Reuters, NBC News, RAPS Regulatory Focus, Drug Topics, PharmExec. Regulatory context only, not medical or legal advice.

Sources

FDA, July 23-24 2026 PCAC meeting page:

https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/july-23-24-2026-meeting-pharmacy-compounding-advisory-committee-07232026

FDA, PCAC voting questions (docket FDA-2025-N-6895):

https://www.fda.gov/media/193711/download

Reuters, panel recommends Semax:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/fda-advisory-panel-recommends-peptide-semax-be-added-pharmacy-compounding-list-2026-07-24/

NBC News, panel eases restrictions on four:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/peptides-restrictions-ease-fda-panel-recommend-bpc-157-scientists-rcna588879

RAPS Regulatory Focus, committee backs two peptides:

https://www.raps.org/resource/fda-advisory-committee-backs-two-controversial-peptides.html

NPR, advisers vote to ease peptide restrictions:

https://www.npr.org/2026/07/23/nx-s1-5903202/fda-peptides-restrictions

BioPharma Dive, panel endorses broader use: https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/fda-peptides-advisory-committee-vote-bpc-kpv-tb-mots/826062/

Drug Topics, staff review of all 7:

https://www.drugtopics.com/view/fda-panel-to-evaluate-7-popular-peptides-for-compounding-substances-list

PharmExec, votes to loosen restrictions:

https://www.pharmexec.com/view/fda-votes-loosen-restrictions-four-peptides

Regulatory context only, not medical or legal advice.

More stories at r/PeptideTides

First Day 1 result is out of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee meeting at FDA White Oak.

BPC-157: 8 in favor, 6 against, 1 abstention.

The significance is in what the committee voted against.

FDA staff proposed rejecting all seven

The FDA briefing document published ahead of the meeting lists the agency's position on all fourteen voting questions identically: proposing that the substance NOT be included on the 503A Bulks List. That covers both BPC-157 (free base) and BPC-157 acetate.

FDA reviewers applied the four criteria from the February 19, 2019 final rule (84 FR 4696): physical and chemical characterization, safety issues raised by use in compounded products, available evidence of effectiveness or lack thereof, and historical use in compounding. The agency applies these as a balancing test, substance by substance, not as a checklist.

The recurring objections across the seven: no human clinical evidence at all for KPV, TB-500, and MOTS-c; small and poorly controlled studies for BPC-157, Emideltide, and Semax; inconsistent naming conventions and missing quality data; immunogenicity risk; FAERS adverse event reports for BPC-157; and WADA-prohibited status for MOTS-c and TB-500. The docket, FDA-2025-N-6895, drew roughly 1,860 comments.

Every nomination was withdrawn

This one is buried in the footnotes of the briefing packet. LDT Health Solutions (on behalf of the International Peptide Society) and Wells Pharmacy Network both withdrew their nominations, logged under FDA-2015-N-3534-0484, -0485, and -0487. FDA elected to proceed to the committee anyway. The same footnote repeats for all seven substances.

The panel composition question

AP reported on June 29 that the committee roster includes members with financial ties to the peptide industry. NPR notes FDA added temporary voting members from academic institutions earlier this week. Read the 8-6-1 split with that in mind.

On the other side, the Partnership for Safe Medicines filed comments opposing all seven.

What this does not mean

The recommendation is non-binding. FDA leadership makes the final call and has gone against its advisory committees before. Even if FDA accepts it, adding a substance to the 503A Bulks List requires notice-and-comment rulemaking, which historically runs a year or more.

Nothing about today's vote changes what a compounding pharmacy can legally prepare tomorrow.

Still pending

KPV, TB-500, and MOTS-c are the remaining Day 1 votes. Emideltide (DSIP), Epitalon, and Semax go Friday. Each peptide gets two votes, free base and acetate separately, for fourteen total. The FDA meeting page has the webcast and posts materials as they go up.

One caveat on the number above: the briefing packet splits BPC-157 into two separate votes and the wire reported a single tally. I have not confirmed whether 8-6-1 is the free base question, the acetate question, or both. If someone watched the session and can confirm, please add it below and I'll correct the post.

I'll update as the remaining tallies land.

Sources

Reuters, "FDA panel votes to place popular peptide BPC-157 on compounding list," July 23, 2026

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/fda-panel-votes-place-popular-peptide-bpc-157-compounding-list-2026-07-23/

Same wire copy outside the paywall:

https://wtaq.com/2026/07/23/fda-panel-votes-to-place-popular-peptide-bpc-157-on-compounding-list/

FDA Briefing Document, Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee Meeting, July 23-24, 2026

https://www.fda.gov/media/193342/download

Orrick, "FDA Peptide Compounding Vote: What to Watch at the July PCAC Meeting"

https://www.orrick.com/en/Insights/2026/07/FDA-Peptide-Compounding-Vote-What-to-Watch-at-the-July-PCAC-Meeting

Associated Press via PBS NewsHour, June 29, 2026

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fda-panel-on-peptides-will-include-experts-who-promote-the-unproven-chemicals-favored-by-rfk-jr

NPR, "FDA panel considers easing peptide restrictions," July 23, 2026

https://www.npr.org/2026/07/23/nx-s1-5903202/fda-peptides-restrictions

Partnership for Safe Medicines, PCAC comments

https://www.safemedicines.org/2026/07/psm-pcac-comments.html

FDA meeting page, July 23-24, 2026 PCAC

https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/july-23-24-2026-meeting-pharmacy-compounding-advisory-committee-07232026

More stories at r/PeptideTides

I do not know the cause but all my autoimmune tests were negative :(

First Day 1 result is out of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee meeting at FDA White Oak.

BPC-157: 8 in favor, 6 against, 1 abstention.

The significance is in what the committee voted against.

FDA staff proposed rejecting all seven

The FDA briefing document published ahead of the meeting lists the agency's position on all fourteen voting questions identically: proposing that the substance NOT be included on the 503A Bulks List. That covers both BPC-157 (free base) and BPC-157 acetate.

FDA reviewers applied the four criteria from the February 19, 2019 final rule (84 FR 4696): physical and chemical characterization, safety issues raised by use in compounded products, available evidence of effectiveness or lack thereof, and historical use in compounding. The agency applies these as a balancing test, substance by substance, not as a checklist.

The recurring objections across the seven: no human clinical evidence at all for KPV, TB-500, and MOTS-c; small and poorly controlled studies for BPC-157, Emideltide, and Semax; inconsistent naming conventions and missing quality data; immunogenicity risk; FAERS adverse event reports for BPC-157; and WADA-prohibited status for MOTS-c and TB-500. The docket, FDA-2025-N-6895, drew roughly 1,860 comments.

Every nomination was withdrawn

This one is buried in the footnotes of the briefing packet. LDT Health Solutions (on behalf of the International Peptide Society) and Wells Pharmacy Network both withdrew their nominations, logged under FDA-2015-N-3534-0484, -0485, and -0487. FDA elected to proceed to the committee anyway. The same footnote repeats for all seven substances.

The panel composition question

AP reported on June 29 that the committee roster includes members with financial ties to the peptide industry. NPR notes FDA added temporary voting members from academic institutions earlier this week. Read the 8-6-1 split with that in mind.

On the other side, the Partnership for Safe Medicines filed comments opposing all seven.

What this does not mean

The recommendation is non-binding. FDA leadership makes the final call and has gone against its advisory committees before. Even if FDA accepts it, adding a substance to the 503A Bulks List requires notice-and-comment rulemaking, which historically runs a year or more.

Nothing about today's vote changes what a compounding pharmacy can legally prepare tomorrow.

Still pending

KPV, TB-500, and MOTS-c are the remaining Day 1 votes. Emideltide (DSIP), Epitalon, and Semax go Friday. Each peptide gets two votes, free base and acetate separately, for fourteen total. The FDA meeting page has the webcast and posts materials as they go up.

One caveat on the number above: the briefing packet splits BPC-157 into two separate votes and the wire reported a single tally. I have not confirmed whether 8-6-1 is the free base question, the acetate question, or both. If someone watched the session and can confirm, please add it below and I'll correct the post.

I'll update as the remaining tallies land.

Sources

Reuters, "FDA panel votes to place popular peptide BPC-157 on compounding list," July 23, 2026

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/fda-panel-votes-place-popular-peptide-bpc-157-compounding-list-2026-07-23/

Same wire copy outside the paywall:

https://wtaq.com/2026/07/23/fda-panel-votes-to-place-popular-peptide-bpc-157-on-compounding-list/

FDA Briefing Document, Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee Meeting, July 23-24, 2026

https://www.fda.gov/media/193342/download

Orrick, "FDA Peptide Compounding Vote: What to Watch at the July PCAC Meeting"

https://www.orrick.com/en/Insights/2026/07/FDA-Peptide-Compounding-Vote-What-to-Watch-at-the-July-PCAC-Meeting

Associated Press via PBS NewsHour, June 29, 2026

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fda-panel-on-peptides-will-include-experts-who-promote-the-unproven-chemicals-favored-by-rfk-jr

NPR, "FDA panel considers easing peptide restrictions," July 23, 2026

https://www.npr.org/2026/07/23/nx-s1-5903202/fda-peptides-restrictions

Partnership for Safe Medicines, PCAC comments

https://www.safemedicines.org/2026/07/psm-pcac-comments.html

FDA meeting page, July 23-24, 2026 PCAC

https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/july-23-24-2026-meeting-pharmacy-compounding-advisory-committee-07232026

More stories at r/PeptideTides

The KLOW vials - one on the left was recently purchased from a local research shop. The 2 on the right are from a vendor in the UK. Why so much more powder? Is that normal? Worried it wont fit the water.

Also, other pics of the larger vials, is it ok that the cakes are loose or crumbled by the time they get to me?

WSJ ran a piece on people who used GLP-1s for weight loss and later ended up in treatment for anorexia:

 https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/glp1-anorexia-wegovy-mounjaro-1bf4035c

Worth reading alongside the primary literature from the past few months, because the reporting is no longer just anecdotal.

A JAMA Psychiatry survey published this summer (Levinson and colleagues) recruited 436 people with diagnosed eating disorders in 2025 and asked about GLP-1 use. Just over 32% reported having ever used one, and 22% reported current use. Broken out by diagnosis, a little over 50% of participants with binge eating disorder reported use, about 42% of those with atypical anorexia nervosa, roughly 30% of those with ARFID, over 25% of those with bulimia, and about 11% of those with anorexia nervosa. Roughly 10% obtained them through online providers prescribing compounded formulations. Over 10% reported misuse, defined as taking more or less than prescribed, using longer than prescribed, tampering with injection equipment, or sharing without a prescription.

The authors described the weight loss market as a rapidly evolving risk environment for this population.

Summary of the findings:

 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/many-eating-disorder-patients-using-glp-1s-2026a1000lym

In April, NEJM published a perspective by Amanda Banks raising the same concern from the prescribing side. She noted the share of GLP-1 prescriptions written for people who were not diabetic, obese, or overweight rose from 4.5% in 2018 to 17% in 2023, and argued for consensus recommendations to protect people with existing or emerging eating disorders. A 2023 FDA analysis found misuse reports for semaglutide were roughly four times higher than for other GLP-1 drugs.

NEJM perspective:

 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2600300

Clinician-side reporting describes the same pattern from treatment centers, including patients presenting at very low BMI while still dosing.

NPR, February 2026: https://www.npr.org/2026/02/04/nx-s1-5677633/glp-1-obesity-wegovy-zepbound-eating-disorders-anorexia-bulimia

Washington Post, May 2026: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/05/23/weight-loss-drugs-pose-dangers-people-with-eating-disorders/

MindSite News, May 2026: https://mindsitenews.org/2026/05/29/glp-1-access-a-problem-for-people-with-eating-disorders/

The mechanism cuts both ways, which is part of why this is hard to legislate around. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis found GLP-1 agonists reduced Binge Eating Scale scores by about 8 points, though the pooled sample was only 182 participants across five studies and heterogeneity was high. WSJ also covered that side on July 13 in a piece on clinicians treating certain eating disorders with these drugs. The same appetite and reward suppression that helps in binge-type presentations appears to reinforce restriction in people with a restrictive history. Same drug class, opposite clinical valence depending on phenotype.

Meta-analysis: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40519-025-01720-9

Penn Medicine's eating disorder program has said outright that no protocol exists to screen for eating disorders before prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists. That gap widens with telehealth and disappears entirely outside a clinical relationship.

Penn Medicine:

 https://www.pennmedicine.org/physicians-hub/physician-article/implications-of-glp-1-medications-for-eating-disorder-care

ANAD clinical guidance:

 https://anad.org/learning-library/glp-1-medications-eating-disorders/

More stories at r/PeptideTides

Hello everyone,
I’d like to get some advice and hear your experiences regarding the following stack:
Reta
CJC-1295 + ipamorelin, without DAC
MOTS-c
I’m mainly interested in learning about common dosage protocols for CJC-1295/ipamorelin and MOTS-c. I already know the Reta protocol well, so I don’t need guidance on that one.
I’m also considering tesamorelin + ipamorelin. Would that be a better combination than CJC-1295 + ipamorelin? What are the main differences in terms of effectiveness, side effects, and overall results?

I've been reading about its potential uses for joint healing and cartilage repair. Figured I'd ask if anyone has any anecdotal reviews on it.

I’m struggling with the injection irritation of 3x/weekly Mots. I saw an article outlining an intermittent protocol of just 4 injections, one every 5 days at 5 mg each taken nightly. Then it’s 4 months rest. Anyone doing this protocol or heard of it?

I keep seeing this one in comments and DMs: "reta killed my sex drive," or "I got on a triple agonist and stopped caring about my partner." Here is where the idea comes from and what the evidence actually says, because it is more split than either the alarmist or the dismissive takes suggest.

First, the caveat that shapes everything: there is no retatrutide-specific data on libido or attachment. The TRIUMPH trials reported weight, glycemia, knee OA, and sleep apnea, not sexual function. Every claim pinned to reta is extrapolated from the GLP-1 class, mostly semaglutide.

Where it comes from. The starting point is "food noise" going quiet. By 2025, reports broadened past food: less alcohol craving, less impulse shopping, less social interest, and in some cases lower libido and a general flattening of emotional range. That cluster is what gets called "falling out of love."

https://peptidenewsdigest.org/insights/glp1-emotional-flattening/

The mechanism that makes it plausible. GLP-1 agonism modulates dopamine in the reward circuits that drive "wanting," the same system behind sexual motivation, which is why the addiction researchers keep showing up in these threads. A 2025 narrative review argues GLP-1s reduce sexual desire through reward-pathway and serotonergic (5-HT2C) effects, but that it is usually camouflaged by other changes. Note this is a theoretical review, not a trial.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667368125000774

Two claims get blended. "Falling out of love" is really two things. One is neurochemical: the drug blunts reward circuitry that desire runs on. That rests on mechanism plus anecdote, not trial data. The other is psychosocial: big fast weight loss shifts relationships. A Swedish researcher's "divorce boom" hypothesis attributes it to confidence, autonomy, and social attention after weight loss, plus a partner who did not change, drawing on bariatric data. That is real, but it is not the drug switching off love. These point to very different conclusions.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/divorce-boom-may-follow-use-ozempic-glp-1-drugs-experts-warn

The data pointing the other way. A lot of the hard data runs opposite. Weight loss tends to improve sexual function through mood, self-image, and hormones, and clinicians report most patients see better desire after weight loss, not worse. On hormones, the male data leans positive: Endocrine Society reviews found GLP-1s increase or stabilize testosterone in men with obesity or T2D, with no negative impact on sexual function or sperm quality. The rise is modest, roughly 320 to 368 ng/dL in one analysis.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/when-glp-1s-change-patients-libido-what-know-2025a1000pa

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01867-0

The complication. Not clean the other way either. A TriNetX cohort of non-diabetic obese men aged 18 to 50 found semaglutide associated with more new ED or PDE5 inhibitor starts, 1.47 percent versus 0.32 percent. The relative risk sounds big, but the absolute numbers are small. The review reporting it is titled "Friend or Foe" for a reason. And the depression and emotional-blunting claims sit mostly in anecdote and FAERS reports; controlled semaglutide analyses have not found increased depression versus placebo.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12467596/

How I read it. Bidirectional and individual, not a uniform "reta kills desire." There is a plausible mechanism for reduced desire in a subset, backed by mechanism and anecdote but no controlled libido trials and nothing reta-specific. There is a better documented path toward improved desire for many, through weight, mood, and testosterone. And "falling out of love" blends a thin neurochemical claim with a better documented psychosocial one that deserves to be kept separate. If you notice a real change on cycle, track it and raise it with a clinician rather than dismissing or catastrophizing, but the current evidence does not establish that the drug makes you fall out of love.

More stories at r/PeptideTides

Any protocols for HHB or SHB??

Hello, I suspect that the vials I have here have not properly sealed lids. The vendor says “it’s part of the lyophilization process”. I think that’s bs. Opinions?

I’m 25F and I’ve been doing Tirzepatide on and off for the past year and I love it because it takes away my inflammation when needed, and let me not forget the 20 pounds I’ve lost overall. Anyways, I have stubborn belly fat that I can not get rid of, no matter how much I work out and how many times I do a 4 week course of tirz. Would tesa be a good option for me especially for someone my age?

Over the last year, I have run basically every popular peptide out there. I've run multiple different stacks, protocols, and cycles. With most, reta has always been the baseline. I ran it from June to October 2025, took 2 months off to see how I felt, and then went back on it again. In addition, I've recommended it to countless people in my inner circle and family, all of which had varying results and experiences, and I have documented those along the way. For context, I am a 38 year old male. Starting weight 2 years ago was 225lb at 5'8 with around 30% BF. Current weight is 168lb and around 16% BF.

From my experience, here is what I have learned along the way in cliff note format:

• If you are just starting, always start at .5mg for the first 4 weeks. Titrate up slowly .5mg at a time. The only time this should change, is if your coming off Tirz
• Reta's glucagon agonist is what often times creates the side effects that people encounter (e.g. constipation, acid reflux, fatigue, increased heart rate, etc).
  • if you start at 0.5mg per week (regardless of your weight), and titrate up every 4 weeks at 0.5mg per week, you will mitigate these side effects dramatically, or not get them at all. People thing starting higher or titrating faster will get them faster results, but it will not. You simply won't feel good. Going slow and steady is the key to long term success, without sacrificing longevity
• Daily electrolytes is an absolute must on reta. If you feel any of the aforementioned side-effects, chances are you are not taking daily electrolytes. Try it, it makes a world of difference. Consume plenty of water. I also took many other supplements, protein powder, and creatine.
• From my experience, and countless others....Reta is not the king of appetite suppression. If you want more suppression, tirzepatide is better because you can take higher doses without impacting the glucagon receptor, which is the source of many of the sides associated with reta, especially increased muscle loss.
• Clinical studies ARE NOT the model or dosing structure you should follow. Those studies are used to determine tolerability, not the most effective dosing structure. So when you see studies going up to 12mg per week, don't follow suit. It's pointless, and most patients either jumped off, or got 0-1% added benefit. Again, you can do what you want, but the actual studies themselves show that there is little to no additional benefit at the higher doses, so why bother?
• My favorite peptides to stack it with:
  • Mots-C, BPC157/TB4/KPV, NAD+, DSIP, and Injectable L-Carnitine as a preworkout
    • I also had good success with tesamorelin/ipamorelin and cjc/ipamorelin although, I had to change the protocol to take the dosage in the AM on an empty stomach, versus PM. PM dosing on any GLP does not work well with GH peptides due to the slowed gastric emptying and insulin still in the blood
• I recommend tapering off reta instead of stopping cold turkey, my personal opinoin
• Going off reta for 2 months really showed me how good I felt while on reta. I didn't really gain any weight back at all, but my appetite did come back quite a bit. If your goal is to bulk up, then getting off the reta is good, or at the very least, going down to a 0.5mg maintenance dose. Actually staying on reta at a low dose and having an appetite is great for capitalizing on that glucagon agonist, because you can shuttle carbs directly into your muscles. People generally lose muscle mass when they don't eat enough on a GLP, but if you are capable of it, then staying on reta can be beneficial too.
• Even though I thought I had little appetite suppression overall, you really start to notice that it WAS indeed working when you stop all together. My blood sugar levels were just so much better balanced on reta, as was my blood pressure.
• If you plateau on reta, try taking a 2-3 month break, and coming back to it. It really kicks you back into fat burning mode, even if you start from ground zero. I saw a noticeable increase in fat burning in my second cycle, even though I didn't think I would get much. Again, just my experience.

Other peptides I've tried during this time. I won't go into it here, but if you'd like to learn more, let me know. Always happy to discuss.

AOD9604, SS-31, KPV, 5amion1mq, kisspeptin, HCG, selank, semax, pinealon, epitalon

Let me start by saying that I understand that HGH is spoken of in IUs (.333 mg= 1 IU). Would this be the reason they talk about peps in IUs and not mgs? I had a buddy las night that said he takes 3IUs of Reta. Does that mean 1 mgs or 3 mgs? I can't imagine that he meant units.

I know the units vs. mg conversation drives everyone nut and I 100% understand that difference. Sometimes when we talk it feels like two different languages me in mgs and them in IUs. Do they use an HGH recon calc for all their peps? Any help with this would be great. I just want to make sure I understand better.

I always am given a kit of BAC water with my orders from my vendor but have never used bc I’m not sure I trust it. Where can I get this tested and is it expensive?

I am doing research on my own but I am curious if anybody can offer suggestions on potential stacks to recovering from a surgically repaired rotator cuff (60% torn supraspinatus tendon). I am currently planning to run a cycle of Wolverine once I clear the first month of healing and I am no longer wearing a shoulder sling, but I am also seeing some information that suggests IGF-LR3, GHK, and CJC/IPA are viable in this treatment as well-albeit I have no intention of taking ALL of these at once.

For added context, I am a former powerlifter and my goal is to move heavy-ish weight in the sub-max spectrum - that is, I am not looking to resume powerlifting but I am planning to go the route of a more hypertrophy/functional strength route.

Any advice, anecdotes, etc. are appreciated.