What's new at The Peptide Almanac
A running, dated log of new guides, comparisons, and improvements. Peptide science moves quickly — this is how we show our work and keep the encyclopedia current. Subscribe via RSS →
A running, dated log of new guides, comparisons, and improvements. Peptide science moves quickly — this is how we show our work and keep the encyclopedia current. Subscribe via RSS →
Finished a depth pass across our twenty most-read guides. Each now carries a section that steps back and asks how strong the evidence really is — and several of the answers are unflattering. AOD-9604 was properly tested in humans and failed to beat placebo, which makes it the rare research peptide whose marketing runs against the best available evidence rather than merely ahead of it. Sermorelin's FDA approval is in the past tense, not the present. Melanotan II has documented reports of changes to moles. IGF-1 LR3 is engineered specifically to evade the body's natural brake on a potent growth signal. Where the evidence is strong we say that too: tesamorelin's trials measured visceral fat by CT scan, and kisspeptin sits on genuinely important reproductive-endocrinology science. We would rather a guide told you the compound is unproven than leave you to infer it.
Added a candid "how good is the evidence, really?" section to our semaglutide, tirzepatide, GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 guides. For semaglutide and tirzepatide that means spelling out what makes their trial programmes genuinely strong — and where the limits are, including weight regain after stopping. For BPC-157 and TB-500 it means stating plainly that there are no completed human trials, that much of the animal research comes from a small number of related groups, and that personal experience cannot separate a repair peptide from ordinary healing. We also added how each is really sold: approved versus compounded versus research-chemical semaglutide and tirzepatide are three different things, and the trial results attach only to the first. Plus the chemistry of why these molecules are freeze-dried and light-sensitive, and TB-500's anti-doping status.
We went back to the primary literature on this comparison and found our own page had understated something. It suggested that switching between these two drugs is usually a practical, lateral move. A 2019 review of 91 patients records the most common documented reason for switching as progressive disease (22.0%), ahead of formulary change (15.4%) and patient preference (9.9%) — so clinical reasons matter more than we implied. That section is corrected. The page also gains a cited table of the head-to-head studies going back to 1999, a section on why the two formulations differ (polymer microspheres versus a polymer-free gel), and a disclosure that the 2019 switching study was funded and co-authored by the manufacturer of one of the two drugs. Sixteen verified references were added across this comparison and the two drug guides behind it.
Added two sections to our editorial policy. The first commits us to saying so, on the page, when a study we rely on for a comparative claim was funded or staffed by a manufacturer with a stake in the result — that disclosure normally sits at the foot of a paper nobody opens. The second explains how to check our work: every citation is a direct permalink rather than a search link, approval dates come from the FDA's own database with the application file linked, and we re-validate citations against the source databases periodically. We would rather you verified than trusted us.
Audited every peptide guide for citation depth and re-harvested the ones running thin. Forty-four verified references were added across fourteen guides, all confirmed against the NIH's PubMed database rather than written from memory — including the pivotal NEJM and Lancet trial papers for CagriSema, MariTide, eloralintide and petrelintide, which previously cited only secondary sources. Guides on glutathione, carnosine and alpha-MSH went from a single reference each to four or more. Only one guide on the site now carries fewer than four sources, and that reflects a genuinely small published literature rather than a gap in our research — we would rather say so than pad it.
Search data showed a steady stream of people arriving with questions our octreotide-vs-lanreotide comparison did not really answer — how the two compare specifically in acromegaly, and what is involved in switching from one to the other. The page has roughly doubled and now covers both, plus how either compares with natural somatostatin. On switching we explain what the process involves and why we will not publish a dose-conversion figure: equivalent dosing is not fixed arithmetic, and it is set by the treating specialist against follow-up bloodwork. We also expanded the tesamorelin-vs-sermorelin and Semax-vs-Selank comparisons, added GHK-Cu answers on its INCI label name, the so-called "copper peptide uglies" and copper-toxicity questions, and answered how many peptides the human body actually makes.
People keep looking for a peptide chart or a downloadable PDF list. Rather than publish a static file that goes stale the moment a peptide is added or an approval changes, we made the pages print properly: hit Print and the navigation, sidebars and banners drop away, leaving the full A–Z table as a clean reference you can save as a PDF yourself — always current.
Peptides that belong to a drug family now show an at-a-glance table of how their siblings differ — the somatostatin analogs, the vasopressin analogs, the PTH bone drugs, the amylin analogs, GnRH agonists versus antagonists, the growth-hormone secretagogues, the cosmetic peptides, and the approved gut medicines. Thirty-eight guides now carry one. The peptide glossary more than doubled, from 24 terms to 53, adding the trial and regulatory vocabulary that decides how much a headline is actually worth — non-inferiority, primary endpoint, phase 1/2/3, compounded, off-label. The A–Z directory and the FDA drugs list also now publish machine-readable list data so search and answer engines can read them properly.
Each of our 35 Learn guides now begins with a short, self-contained answer to the question in its title — so you get the actual answer before the explanation, whether you're reading the page or seeing it quoted somewhere else. We also rewrote the nine category hubs, which had become little more than lists of links: each now explains how that group of peptides is thought to work and sorts the compounds honestly by how strong the evidence behind them really is.
Updated our CagriSema guide with the REDEFINE 4 result: in the first direct head-to-head trial, CagriSema produced about 23.0% weight loss over 84 weeks versus about 25.5% for tirzepatide (Zepbound), and did not meet its primary endpoint of non-inferiority. We report that plainly because it cuts against the coverage that preceded it. Also added five new side-by-side comparisons of the next-generation metabolic drugs — CagriSema vs tirzepatide, CagriSema vs semaglutide, petrelintide vs eloralintide, MariTide vs tirzepatide, and retatrutide vs CagriSema — and refreshed eloralintide's status now that its Phase 3 programme is enrolling.
Wrote full-length guides for the thirteen peptides that were still running on short summaries — the somatostatin analogs (octreotide, lanreotide, pasireotide), the vasopressin family (desmopressin, vasopressin, terlipressin), palopegteriparatide, the frontier metabolic drugs (CagriSema, petrelintide, eloralintide, MariTide), and the fitness research chemicals IGF-1 DES and HGH Fragment 176-191. Every peptide guide on the site is now a substantial article rather than a stub. We also deepened seven of the Learn guides, including a much fuller answer to "are peptides safe?" that sorts the question into the three things that actually determine risk.
Published a chronological timeline of all 40 FDA-approved peptide medicines, from glucagon in 1960 to elamipretide (Forzinity) in 2025 — with the exact approval date, first brand name, what it was approved for, and a link to the FDA's own application record for every entry. Dates were pulled programmatically from the FDA's public Drugs@FDA database rather than written from memory, and the methodology and its limits are stated on the page. Free to cite and reuse with attribution.
Rounded out the library with peptides for men, gut health, sleep, tendon repair, and bodybuilding — each mapping the relevant peptides to the goal and separating approved medicines from unproven research chemicals. Plus two practical guides people search for: how long do peptides take to work (realistic results timelines) and how much do peptides cost (a neutral breakdown, and why the cheapest options carry the biggest risks).
Added a complete GLP-1 agonists guide — what GLP-1 is, the full list of drugs (Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, Zepbound and the pipeline), and how single, dual and triple agonists differ. Also a straight-talking 'Is MK-677 a peptide?' explainer (no — it's a small molecule, and here's why it's confused with peptides). Behind the scenes, we improved internal navigation so every peptide and comparison guide now links back to the foundational 'what are peptides' explainer.
Added four foundational guides answering the questions people actually search: Why Do People Take Peptides? (the real reasons, from proven medicines to hype), How Do Peptides Work? (signaling molecules and receptors, in plain English), Do Peptides Actually Work / Are They Worth It? (an honest, evidence-based verdict), and Research Peptides Explained (what 'research use only' really means). All neutral, cross-linked, and referenced.
Reorganized our category hubs around how people actually search — leading with "Peptides for Weight Loss," "Peptides for Muscle Growth," "Peptides for Skin," and so on. We also added two new goal guides: Peptides for Hair (an honest look at copper peptides, thymosin beta-4 and what the evidence really shows, including the GLP-1 hair-shedding question) and Peptides for Women (weight, skin, and the one peptide — PT-141 — that's FDA-approved specifically for women). Both fully referenced.
Published a neutral guide to peptide 'stacks' — the informal combinations people ask about, like the Wolverine (BPC-157 + TB-500), GLOW and KLOW healing stacks and the classic CJC-1295 + ipamorelin growth-hormone stack. It explains what each contains and links to every component, then gives the honest reality check: these are marketing bundles of mostly unapproved research chemicals with no human trials of the combinations, and stacking multiplies the unknowns rather than the proof. No dosing or protocols.
A major accuracy refresh reflecting recent developments. We rewrote the 'Are peptides legal?' guide around the FDA's April 2026 removal of BPC-157, TB-500, GHK-Cu and others from the compounding restriction list — with the crucial caveat that removal is not authorization. We updated the guides for semaglutide (now approved as an oral weight-loss pill and for MASH liver disease), tirzepatide (approved for obstructive sleep apnea), SS-31/elamipretide (which earned its first FDA approval for Barth syndrome), and retatrutide (Phase 3 complete, filing expected 2027). We also added five new peptide guides at the frontier of obesity medicine: CagriSema, petrelintide, eloralintide, maridebart cafraglutide (MariTide), and the approved hypoparathyroidism drug palopegteriparatide (Yorvipath). Every addition is backed by verified primary-source citations.
Added a complete 'Types of Peptides' breakdown — grouping every peptide by biological function, by health goal, and by structure, with examples and links to each type. Also a neutral 'Most Popular Peptides' guide that rounds up the compounds people search and talk about most and gives each an honest evidence check, because popular doesn't mean proven. Both are cross-linked into the wider library.
Added a dedicated list of the 38 FDA-approved peptide medicines, grouped by what they treat — diabetes and weight loss, hormonal and reproductive health, endocrine and fluid-balance conditions, bone and gut conditions, immune and inflammatory disease, and dermatology — each listed with its brand names. It's the quick way to separate the real, approved peptide drugs from the unapproved compounds sold online.
Added six comparison guides, several of them covering the new peptides: octreotide vs lanreotide and octreotide vs pasireotide (choosing between somatostatin analogs), desmopressin vs vasopressin (why only one raises blood pressure), HGH Fragment 176-191 vs AOD-9604 (two related fat-loss fragments), IGF-1 DES vs IGF-1 LR3 (potency vs duration), and semaglutide vs mazdutide (approved GLP-1 vs an investigational dual agonist). That brings the comparison library to 62.
Expanded the library from 95 to 103 peptides. A new 'Endocrine & Clinical' category covers major approved peptide medicines that didn't fit our wellness categories: the somatostatin analogs octreotide, lanreotide and pasireotide (acromegaly, neuroendocrine tumors, Cushing's disease) and the vasopressin analogs desmopressin, vasopressin and terlipressin (diabetes insipidus, bedwetting, bleeding, and shock). We also added two long-requested fitness peptides — HGH Fragment 176-191 and IGF-1 DES — with an honest look at their thin, animal-only evidence. Every new guide is fully referenced with verified citations.
Filled out the handful of pages that were thinner than the rest of the library. Four peptide guides (GHRP-1, carnosine, alpha-MSH, and glutathione) gained full-length mechanism, evidence, and safety sections to match the depth of the other 91. The Peptides vs Steroids and Peptides vs SARMs guides gained at-a-glance comparison tables, and several foundational guides were deepened. No page on the site now runs short.
Published a guide to immune-modulating peptides — the thymic peptides like thymosin alpha-1 and thymalin, and the host-defense peptides like LL-37 — explaining how they influence immunity and which are genuinely established versus investigational. Also a neutral, evidence-based guide to collagen peptides (hydrolyzed collagen): what they are, whether the body absorbs them, what the trials actually show for skin, joints, bone and muscle, and how they differ from research and cosmetic peptides. Both fully referenced with verified clinical citations.
Published a guide to cosmetic peptides — the topical skincare kind, not injectables. It explains the four types (signal, carrier, 'Botox-like' neurotransmitter-inhibiting, and enzyme-inhibiting peptides), what popular ingredients like Matrixyl, copper peptides, Argireline and SNAP-8 actually do, and — importantly — how they differ from the collagen peptides you swallow. Fully referenced with verified clinical citations, and honest that the effects are real but modest.
Published three new pillar guides covering topics our per-peptide pages couldn't. Nootropic peptides lists Semax, Selank, Cerebrolysin, Cortexin and the rest with an honest account of how thin the human evidence is. Peptide hormones explains the definition, how they differ from steroid hormones, and lists the major examples from insulin to GLP-1. Peptide bioregulators covers the Khavinson peptides — including a frank section on why decades of research from a single lineage still isn't independent validation. All three are fully referenced with verified PubMed citations.
Added a route-of-administration breakdown to the peptide list: which of the 95 are injectable, oral, nasal-spray, topical, or implant, with a short explanation of why injection is the default. Also expanded the FAQ to answer which peptides can be taken orally.
Added a definition-first 'Quick answer' box to the top of all 95 peptide guides, giving a clear one-sentence answer to 'what is [peptide]?' before the detail. This makes the guides faster to skim and easier for search and AI answer engines to quote accurately.
Published a new Learn guide answering one of the most common questions in the category — yes, Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and Zepbound are all peptide medicines — and explaining how they differ from the unapproved 'research peptides' sold online. Also expanded the How Are Peptides Taken guide with a routes-at-a-glance table and a plainer explanation of why most peptides can't be swallowed.
Rebuilt the A–Z directory into a full reference list: an at-a-glance table of what all 95 peptides are studied for and whether each is an FDA-approved medicine or a research chemical, a breakdown of peptides by regulatory status, and a new FAQ. Also clarified the naming and amino-acid details on the BPC-157 and GHK-Cu guides.
Grew the comparison library to 56 side-by-side guides. New additions include insulin vs semaglutide, the GnRH paradox (gonadorelin vs leuprolide), tirzepatide vs mazdutide, and pairs spanning bone, cosmetic, immune, and mitochondrial peptides — each summarizing how two peptides differ in mechanism, evidence, and approval status.
Added 100+ more verified citations across the encyclopedia (now about 6 sources per peptide guide on average), and published a new Learn guide — How Peptide Research Is Graded — explaining the evidence hierarchy so readers can weigh any claim.
Added an automated pre-publish validator that checks every page's links, structured data, and citations, plus an llms.txt file so AI answer engines can cite our guides accurately and preserve our evidence-tier and no-dosing framing.
Every peptide guide now links to verified, direct PubMed or regulator sources — about 4–5 per guide on average — harvested and checked against the source record. We replaced the last remaining non-direct links so each citation points to a specific article.
Added research-backed guides for glutathione, carnosine, GHRP-1, and alpha-MSH — filling genuine gaps in the encyclopedia, each with verified citations and clear evidence labeling.
Published new plain-English explainers: Peptides vs Steroids, Peptides vs SARMs, What Is Peptide Therapy, and Peptide Side Effects — alongside the existing what/safe/legal/how guides and glossary.
Expanded our neutral side-by-side comparisons to cover the GLP-1 family, growth-hormone peptides, bone and gut drugs, GnRH agonists and antagonists, cosmetic peptides, and more — each summarizing how two peptides differ in mechanism, evidence, and approval status.
Added a per-page trust bar, source-type labels on every citation, and a rewritten editorial policy that states plainly what our review is and isn't — researched and fact-checked by our editorial team, not a personal medical sign-off.
The Peptide Almanac went live as a free, research-backed encyclopedia of peptides organized by research goal, with deeply-cited guides, category hubs, an A–Z directory, and a peptide finder.