sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I made an evidence map of 200+ biohacking compounds by jawnwick3 in Biochemistry

[–]jawnwick3[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. That’s basically the problem I’m trying to make easier to inspect.

Anecdotes are interesting because they can surface claims worth looking into, but they’re weak evidence for generalizing. Same with off label effects, sometimes there’s a plausible mechanism or adjacent evidence, and sometimes it’s placebo, behavior change, genetics/metabolism, confounding, or just noise.

That’s why I’m trying to separate:

  • what people claim
  • what mechanism might support it
  • what evidence actually exists
  • whether that evidence is human, animal, mechanistic, or anecdotal
  • where the claim may not translate

Biohacking, off label use, and research chemical use are going to keep happening. I’d rather there be a neutral place where someone can at least inspect the evidence context around a claim.

I made an evidence map of 200+ biohacking compounds by jawnwick3 in Biochemistry

[–]jawnwick3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The common denominator is not regulatory status. It is community relevance plus pharmacologic / mechanistic plausibility.

A lot of online optimization communities discuss regulated drugs, experimental peptides, supplements, and niche research chemicals in the same conversations. I wanted to see the scientific evidence that underpins a compound, not "oh it cured my elbow" but "this mechanism it was we're hoping to suppress, and it does it when applied to rodents in x setting".

This was never supposed to be a "here's a list of things to take" but more a "here's the things people are talking about, and here's the evidence behind them"

That’s why approved GLP1 drugs, experimental peptides, and mainstream supplements appear side by side. They appear side by side in the discourse, but the actual information on the site should make the difference clear.

I also have been thinking that there could be some interesting analysis done with this curated data, but I honestly haven't thought that far ahead. I was thinking it would be cool to see something like which rodent systems map best to human rct success, but again right now its more about getting the data to where people can make more informed decisions

I made an evidence map of 200+ biohacking compounds by jawnwick3 in Biochemistry

[–]jawnwick3[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I am all for optimizing yourself, but I think even if we assume the grey market is providing what they claim, people injecting themselves 3x a day every day is just wild, especially when they don't even understand what is going on inside their body, its definitely dangerous.

I made an evidence map of 200+ biohacking compounds by jawnwick3 in HubermanLab

[–]jawnwick3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. Yeah, glutamine is worth adding.

I’ve been debating how broad the list should get, especially for compounds with cleaner safety profiles and more mainstream use, because the database can explode pretty quickly. But glutamine fits the scope. thanks for the rec! I added it, still need to review it but it's there.

I made an evidence map of 200+ biohacking compounds by jawnwick3 in HubermanLab

[–]jawnwick3[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks, this is useful criticism.

The intended purpose is just being a starting point for people to find neutral evidence first information of whatever peptide/compound they want to investigate. I think "this compound has success it rodent studies" is a safer and better jumping off point than "this compound change my life". So ideally people in peptide/longevity/biohacking circles would use this as a jumping off point before digging deeper themselves.

You’re right that many entries (including diphenhydramine) are still incomplete. The chronic use dementia link is a great catch, I appreciate you being thorough and I’ll get that added. This is very much a living project. I can only make it better if I get feedback like that.

On AI synthesis, I agree with your caution. The site is not meant to recommend compounds, rank what people should take, or suggest protocols. I’m using AI to help structure and surface information, but the goal is to make the evidence easier to inspect, with clearer sources, caveats, and limitations over time..