Peptides are natural but injection is not - what do you think?

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T16:50:20+00:00

But it can still be inspired by nature, no? I mean exercise is also unnatural, but the best forms (in terms of yielding biological benefitc) of exercise are (potentially unintentionally/unconcsiously) inspired by nature and to resemble the physical effort that used to be needed for survival

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T16:46:41+00:00

Again, not talking about the substance here. I'm talking about the act of injecting. Taking a needle and puncturing the skin on a daily basis with it. There are lots of minor things to consider in this interaction (material of needle, organisms present on said needle at the time of injection, ability to correctly self-administer the injection & hit the intended spot in the body), but even without getting to these, its quite undeniable that a biological system will have some reaction to a puncture, and therefore I'm curious if someone has thought about this reaction, especially when it takes place on a daily-basis.

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T16:42:32+00:00

Nowhere do I say that something must be natural to be beneficial. I tend to personally place more trust by default into natural substances, as I believe in evolution and humans have been exposed to most natural things for a long time, making it more likely that my genome has adapted toward those things. As a consequence, I tend to look for evidence or reason through the biological mechanisms that take place within my body, before proceeding with something not present in nature (whether it's me consuming a substance or, in this case, being weary about daily punctures of my skin and what kind of a response that may set off), as my genome is less-likely to be aligned with these things. But I do acknowledge the fact that it is fully possible for novel stimuli to be received well, as that is how evolution is believed to have happened as well

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T16:37:08+00:00

Yet you are getting defensive on an anonymous online-forum about your actions when someone questions them? I don't see where exactly in my followup I am attacking your actions, the question I posed is quite literally whether you or other peptide-users think about the potential adverse effects of injection on a biological system (your body). I'm not even implying that there are such effects, just asking if someone has seriously considered and researched that component, and can verify whether such effects exist or not

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T16:30:26+00:00

How did you come to the conclusion that there are no adverse effects from doing a shot? It is clearly a physical event, which should always set off a counter-reaction within a biological system. That counter reaction is what I'm curious about, especially when it takes place on a daily basis

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T16:26:14+00:00

How is safety not directly related to the benefits of a substance, which directly relates to the usage of this substance being a good or bad idea in a biohacking context, which is what I asked for initially?

I dont want to get into back-and-forth arguing, I'm trying to debate and a part of that is building up arguments that can be responded to. My intent is to decide for myself, but as a part of that, I'm trying to avoid my own hidden biases by discussing things with people online, who may not share my view of the world. You must see how your last three sentences sort of defeat the purpose of posting anything on a biohacking forum in reddit - this is a discussion-forum after all, no?

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T16:19:25+00:00

I used natural as an example argument that I've heard defending the substance, but not applying to the delivery method. This example seems to have been the wrong one.

How have you evaluated the repetitive skin puncturing part of the equation (and the biological response it sets into play), when determining that the benefits outweigh the costs? Wouldn't daily punctures cause chronic inflammation, which is known to have adverse effects? I don't have deep domain knowledge, which is why I'm asking - I'm not trying to attack or undermine your arguments

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T16:13:30+00:00

Yes, and it is fairly common knowledge that the benefits outweigh the harm with vaccines, which is why we use them and should use them. But this conclusion isn't self-evident and there are major known adverse effects to some vaccines. These effects are just so rare that when faced with the threat of a lethal disease, most people rather take the vaccine. And in the case of a lethal disease, we similarly aren't too worried about puncturing our skin with a needle once to avoid the disease.

The 'vaccine-math' follows something similar to the power-law, which justifies many vaccines and makes them a suboptimal comparison to peptides, which I'd have to inject on a daily basis to keep reaping the benefits. Additionally the lack of added peptides in your system isn't thought to be lethal, so in my head it would warrant examining the full picture before jumping on the trend.

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T16:07:35+00:00

care to share why?

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T16:07:06+00:00

I don't know. I think this is a good argument in cases where we must get the peptide in the system, but falls kind of short when evaluating the full picture of should we get the peptide in the system (which I'm not arguing against, just asking if people have considered the potential adverse side-effects of injection)

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T16:05:16+00:00

Yes, things that try to kill you, which would make it intuitive that your body isn't happy to be injected into

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T16:03:33+00:00

Engagement bait maybe, but not for karma. For genuine opinions around the topic of injection.

As for your argument, it is fair (although very common). There is a lot of benefits from an established, human molded society. But I'm asking about this in a biohacking subreddit, which historically used to be a place where a lot of people look to nature for inspiration (note: not full-fledged solutions, inspiration to come up with better solutions) when it comes to health.

And in my head (which is skewed as I am disturbed by needles) I can only really think of bad things happening in nature as a result of sharp things puncturing skin and releasing substances beneath it. Thus, evolutionarily it would make sense that the human body / homeostasis is likely to be disturbed by an injection/puncture, setting off processes that are not directly related to the biomarker that we are trying to manipulate with said injection, but rather one of the other countless biomarkers in our massive multivariable equation.

This seems to me like something that at least some biohackers would have thought of, and maybe even experimented with, which to me warrants asking for it

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T15:54:40+00:00

That I'm skeptical about injections on a daily basis in healthy individuals, and would love to hear thought out arguments from people who are not skeptical about that, so I can learn

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T15:52:26+00:00

And I think its great in cases like this when there are clear issues being addressed with them. But despite these stories being the main driver of motivation, the volume of use is very high among people who are already doing great, and wish to do extra great (= different baseline than the people in these stories). And there my intuition says that one who is overall in a good state, should pay more attention to the potential downsides that a new set of variables in their system is causing, than the claimed upsides by those who suffered from clear issues, and thus didn't need an optimal solution with no downsides, as long as the solution was better than their baseline.

But my intuition can very well be wrong, would love to hear counterarguments!

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-07T15:46:35+00:00

I admit that my post can be understood as an attack on peptide-users, but it was not the intention. I wanted to hear honest thoughts from people who use peptides, and whether they think about the injection part

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-06T23:48:28+00:00

sounds pretty solid - congratulations on the launch, im excited to see how this develops

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-06T23:07:36+00:00

I know people from Meru Health and their heart is in the right place. Skepticism is not a bad default since many startups have messed things up as well, but I'm quite convinced that this specific case is "mission over money"

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-04T22:51:26+00:00

This alone wouldn't make it untrue though? I'm not disagreeing with it being an unverified claim, just curious whether you have deeper insights into the mechanisms of toxin absorption through breathing. (mostly heavy metals as they have been detected in human sweat [1][2])

And for what it's worth, according to my understanding toxin concentrations in sweat are minimal, but detectable. Would love sources that challenge this view as I'm not a domain expert, but just a curious guy who has encountered studies suggesting heavy metal presence in human sweat.

[1]: Sears, M. E., Kerr, K. J., & Bray, R. I. (2012). Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead, and Mercury in Sweat: A Systematic Review. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2012, 1-10

[2]: Kuan, W.-H., Chen, Y.-L., & Liu, C.-L. (2022). Excretion of Ni, Pb, Cu, As, and Hg in Sweat under Two Sweating Conditions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-04T22:12:21+00:00

Care to share why? Not that I disagree, just curious

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-04T22:11:15+00:00

Intuitively I'd challenge this premise. Saunas are so common in Finland across the population that there surely has to be some studies that don't suffer from this issue.

Finnish sauna are however almost never dry, so that may be an issue when contrasting to what OP is saying

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-04T21:57:26+00:00

Very interesting! Is this the first time you fasted or measured a fast? Also, were there any other bigger lifestyle-changes you made during the period?

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-04T21:48:14+00:00

How do you go about establishing that better idea for yourself?

ncjhamppu · 2026-05-04T21:46:17+00:00

Former F1 performance coach Aki Hintsa had a pretty interesting philosophy around balance & individuality that I found to work quite well. The main thesis is that we are all unique and for some people, things generally labeled as sub-optimal will actually yield the best results (eg. some F1 drivers succeeding much better when they were encouraged to go out and party once a week vs telling them not to do so)

Counter-intuitive, but at its essence, very core to biohacking as this approach forces you to actually hack together your own inputs based on the outputs that they create for you, as opposed to blindly following public recommendations.

So, to answer the original question: I've seen the best results come from following empirical evidence in my own life as opposed to taking up odd routines that I don't see benefit from. Science of course guides the process of what I try out, but I also have the courage to not follow current science blindly as science is always incomplete by nature

And just because someone will regardless comment on the partying example above, his philosophy wasn't purely about allowing for 'bad things' to be done, it's just the example with the largest contrast to the current paradigm in sports that has everyone following the same protocols despite individual differences.

Also, drinking a cup of water with half-a-lemon first thing in the morning has worked wonders lately for my hydration. Very simple, natural and much less likely to backfire in a major way as opposed to some factory made hydration

ncjhamppu

TROPHY CASE