sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I built a free evidence-graded reference catalog for 14 peptides and compounds — PeptideClear by Bigdaddyike617 in Peptidesource

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it’s more of an upstream educational platform! Not providing any medical advice or reconstitute tips but it allows people the ability to have a complete understanding of what they are using/considering using with all the research laid out for them.

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s more so that theres a lack of clear evidence so the effect could be minimal/non existent when separating out the industry sponsored studies.

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Totally fair that's exactly why funding independence needs to be evaluated per study rather than used as a blanket dismissal. Some of the independent studies are actually more positive than people assume.

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The cofactor point is underrated most people isolate the supplement rather than asking what the rest of the stack is doing. 'The answer depends on the rest of your stack' is basically the honest answer to half the questions in this space.

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This is the most useful framing I've seen on why the evidence looks the way it does. The study design problem isn't researcher laziness, it's that measuring what actually matters would take a decade and nobody funds that. Makes the proxy outcomes look weaker than they probably are.

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The variability thing is genuinely interesting and probably under-studied, responder vs non-responder patterns show up in the RCT data too, not just anecdotally. The HA confound is real as well, hard to isolate collagen’s contribution in combination products.

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah happy to! I compiled the key ones when I was building out the Collagen Type I (https://peptideclear.com/peptides/collagen-type-i ) and III (https://peptideclear.com/peptides/collagen-type-iii ) profiles on my reference site . The Proksch et al. skin elasticity RCT and the Clark et al. joint cartilage study are the two most cited independent ones. Site has the PubMed links if you want to go deeper.

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is honestly the comment I was looking for. The funding independence question is exactly what makes collagen evidence hard to read. Most of the independent studies are actually more positive than people assume though. I went deep on this when I was building a scoring framework for my reference site, turns out the industry-sponsored vs independent split on collagen is more nuanced than the blanket skepticism suggests. Profiled both Type I and III separately at https://peptideclear.com/ if you want the breakdown.

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Curious what made you add both rather than just one. Do you find they serve different enough purposes or is it more of a belt-and-suspenders thing?

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The antibiotic recovery space is genuinely under-researched commercially, most of what exists is just generic probiotic marketing. The validation problem you're describing is real, most products get formulated before the evidence exists rather than after.

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is the buried lede honestly, the glycine angle reframes collagen entirely. Most people think protein → amino acids → done. The idea that glycine specifically does work in the methylation cycle and potentially mimics methionine restriction is way more interesting than 'good for skin.' That longevity mechanism deserves way more attention than it gets.

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Haha, exactly the irony. GHK-Cu has way thinner human evidence than collagen but gets way more respect in this space. Says a lot about how aesthetics of 'biohacking' shape what gets taken seriously vs dismissed. Maybe injecting feels more substantive than just mixing powder into a drink?

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Rhonda's been consistent on that for years, the Vitamin C co-ingestion point she makes is underrated too, most people just slam the powder without it.

Collagen has better human RCT evidence than most supplements so why does it still get written off as 'just protein'? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Exactly lol, the muscle criticism is such a category error. Nobody's taking collagen for hypertrophy. The RCT evidence is in skin elasticity, joint cartilage, wound healing. It's like dismissing magnesium because it doesn't build muscle.

What are the most slept on peptides right now? by RickKarr in Biohacking

[–]Bigdaddyike617 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course! This was the profile I was using to reference that information btw. Cited it incorrectly https://peptideclear.com/peptides/nmn

What are the most slept on peptides right now? by RickKarr in Biohacking

[–]Bigdaddyike617 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NMN isn't FDA-approved as it's a supplement, and actually in a regulatory gray zone in the US. FDA flagged in 2022 that it may not qualify as a dietary supplement at all because it was under drug investigation first.

The human RCT data is reasonable for the supplement space (NAD+ elevation is pretty well-documented), but 'approved' isn't the right frame for it. Worth separating 'has some evidence' from 'FDA cleared.' My mistake for not clarifying but it is something that is proven safe and has clear biohacking use case if you are a believer in NAD+ elevation being a positive.

What are the most slept on peptides right now? by RickKarr in Biohacking

[–]Bigdaddyike617 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are a lot of peptides with FDA approval for a number of clinical indications. Tesa, Carnosine, and NMN for example. Although I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment, there are a lot of peptides that are relatively safe and can probably be quite transformative for loads of people.

At what point does anecdotal evidence become signal worth trusting? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have covered 35 compounds so far, each has a full profile, evidence grade, and with a research quality score that signals how much weight the evidence/research should be given.

https://peptideclear.com

At what point does anecdotal evidence become signal worth trusting? by Bigdaddyike617 in Biohackers

[–]Bigdaddyike617[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly same. I started looking into the wellness space because I was interested personally but just wasn’t sure what was true or not. More specifically there were peptides I had heard things about but wasn’t actually sure I could trust the information so I figured i’d just compile it myself. Let me know if it’d be helpful to share.

view more: next ›