Peptides Reference · How We Work
Research & Evidence Standards
How we source, rate, and present information, and how to judge the strength of the evidence behind any claim on this site.
In Brief
Most research peptides sit in an awkward gap: real biological signals with promising early data, but little of the large, independent human evidence that backs an approved drug. Pretending otherwise would be dishonest, so we label exactly where each claim comes from.
This page explains our evidence philosophy, the three-tier system you see on every protocol table, how we handle uncertainty, and the primary sources we rely on. The goal is simple: make it easy to tell a peer-reviewed finding from a community convention.
Our evidence philosophy
We prioritise primary literature. Where a claim rests on a published study, we aim to note the study design, the model (human, animal, or in vitro), the sample size, and the main limitations, and to link out to PubMed or the original paper so you can check it yourself.
Just as important is what we do not do. We do not present animal results as if they were human results, we do not turn a single small study into a settled fact, and we do not smooth over conflicting findings. When the honest answer is “the data is thin,” we say so. For a field this full of marketing, careful labelling is the most useful thing a reference can offer.
The three-tier evidence system
Every dosing protocol on this site is tagged with one of three tiers. The tiers describe where the information comes from, which is the best available proxy for how much weight to give it. They are not a safety rating, and a higher tier does not mean a peptide is safe or approved.
Research
StrongestDrawn from peer-reviewed literature and, where they exist, human clinical trials. This is the most rigorous tier, though for many research peptides the published work is still preclinical (animal or in vitro), which we note.
Source: published studies indexed on PubMed ↗ and trial registries.
Clinical
PractitionerDrawn from clinician-authored references that document how physicians working with peptides actually dose them. This reflects real practice and is more detailed than the trial literature, but it is not itself peer-reviewed evidence.
Community
WeakestDrawn from popular guides and accumulated community practice. It captures what people commonly do, which is useful context, but it is anecdotal and carries the least evidentiary weight. Treat it as the lowest-confidence tier.
Source: Peptides For Men, N. Wells ↗ and similar guides.
When sources disagree, we show all three side by side rather than picking a “winner.” That divergence is itself useful information: it tells you how settled (or unsettled) the dosing really is.
How we handle uncertainty
Several recurring caveats shape how research peptides should be read, and we try to flag them consistently:
Animal data is not human data
Many striking results come from rodents. Effects and doses often do not translate directly to humans, and we label the model rather than implying a human result.
Replication matters
A finding from a single lab carries less weight than one reproduced by independent groups. Some peptides rest heavily on one research group’s work.
No approved human protocol
For most peptides here, no regulator has established a human dose. Protocols are extrapolated from studies or practice, which is why we tier them.
Conflicting results happen
Where studies or sources disagree, we present the range instead of a false consensus, and say which way the stronger evidence leans when it does.
Key databases
We link to these throughout the site so you can verify any claim at the source. They are the same tools we use to compile each profile.
PubMed / NCBI ↗
The primary database for biomedical literature and peer-reviewed studies. The first stop for the evidence behind any peptide.
PubChem ↗
Chemical structures, molecular weights, properties, and identifiers for each compound. The source for our chemistry sections.
ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
Registry of ongoing and completed human trials. Where we check whether a peptide has genuine clinical evidence behind it.
Sources we reference
Beyond the databases above, two practitioner texts inform the Clinical and Community tiers. We name them openly and label which tier each one supports, so you can weigh them accordingly.
Peptide Protocols, Vol. 1, by Dr. William Seeds ↗
A clinician-authored reference that anchors our Clinical tier. Physician-focused, detailed on dosing, but not peer-reviewed trial data.
Peptides For Men, by Nicole Wells ↗
A popular practitioner guide that anchors our Community tier. Useful for common conventions; anecdotal, not peer-reviewed.
Important: Our summaries are for research orientation only. They do not replace reading the full papers, and they do not constitute medical or regulatory guidance. Evidence tiers describe the source of information, not the safety or legality of any peptide.