> The most important column is the last one—there is no evidence from randomized trials in humans that any of these peptides provide the benefits that are advocated. As seen below, two of the peptides have been prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
Why would WADA ban things for which there is no evidence that they do anything?
To be added to the Prohibited List, a substance must meet any two of the following three conditions:
1. It has the potential to enhance sport performance. (potential -> a theoretical mechanism, even if unproven)
2. It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete.
3. It violates the spirit of sport.
Most of these peptides haven't passed adequate human safety trials, and their long term side effect profile is unknown. Additionally, an attempt at using anything to gain an unfair advantage violates the spirit of sport, even if the effect is placebo or even negative.
It was Prof. Birkmayer who bought the stable form of NADH to the market, you can find his products here[0]. As mentioned it’s not a peptide and works quite well especially for older people who can benefit from the increased energy delivery to the cells.
The unstable form in a liquid can be injected, but I would be very careful about where it was produced, how it was transported and how it was stored.
The whole peptide hype is very interesting and I can’t wait until well studied cheap over the counter options hit the market.
I could see things being banned if they mask other substances that are banned and effective (or active). Like eating poppy seed bagels is supposed to mask opiats, etc.
Safety issues, perhaps. Fragments from digestion might look like smaller things which do something (bad). There's a whole lot that's not known re: biological mechanisms. The fact that drug design has worked this well is impressive.
Ah yes, thousands of people benefiting from cheap and effective drugs that can’t be patented because they naturally occur. Of course it doesn’t work. /sarcasm
The medical field has a terrible problem in terms of literature reproducibility and ethics. The beta blocker scandal is a great example.
Sadly, that seems to be the gist of the article. I was really hoping for something a little more, but the whole tone struck me as "millions of people are putting uncontrolled amounts of sugar, honey, and who knows what other sweeteners in their tea without a single double blind study to prove it improves the flavor, and without regard to the potential side effects!" pearl clutching.
I'm all in favor of well designed studies. Not so fond of gatekeeping.
> The most important column is the last one—there is no evidence from randomized trials in humans that any of these peptides provide the benefits that are advocated. As seen below, two of the peptides have been prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
Why would WADA ban things for which there is no evidence that they do anything?
To be added to the Prohibited List, a substance must meet any two of the following three conditions:
Most of these peptides haven't passed adequate human safety trials, and their long term side effect profile is unknown. Additionally, an attempt at using anything to gain an unfair advantage violates the spirit of sport, even if the effect is placebo or even negative.It was Prof. Birkmayer who bought the stable form of NADH to the market, you can find his products here[0]. As mentioned it’s not a peptide and works quite well especially for older people who can benefit from the increased energy delivery to the cells. The unstable form in a liquid can be injected, but I would be very careful about where it was produced, how it was transported and how it was stored.
The whole peptide hype is very interesting and I can’t wait until well studied cheap over the counter options hit the market.
0. https://birkmayer-nadh.com/
I could see things being banned if they mask other substances that are banned and effective (or active). Like eating poppy seed bagels is supposed to mask opiats, etc.
Safety issues, perhaps. Fragments from digestion might look like smaller things which do something (bad). There's a whole lot that's not known re: biological mechanisms. The fact that drug design has worked this well is impressive.
I thought 99% of the "peptide" market is reta which this article ignores.
Ah yes, thousands of people benefiting from cheap and effective drugs that can’t be patented because they naturally occur. Of course it doesn’t work. /sarcasm
The medical field has a terrible problem in terms of literature reproducibility and ethics. The beta blocker scandal is a great example.
Sadly, that seems to be the gist of the article. I was really hoping for something a little more, but the whole tone struck me as "millions of people are putting uncontrolled amounts of sugar, honey, and who knows what other sweeteners in their tea without a single double blind study to prove it improves the flavor, and without regard to the potential side effects!" pearl clutching.
I'm all in favor of well designed studies. Not so fond of gatekeeping.