How fragile are peptides?

As I said - the nice part about this is that we can all do it however we want... And we are free to debate it to our last breath.

The scary part is that new people come in and believe statements that go against medical professionals...

I read it on the peptide forum, it must be true!

I'll follow my research and everyone else can do whatever they please.

There's plenty of contradicting info in the peptide community... PLENTY!
 
It is still a myth that has been proven false.

Please qualify yourself as an authority on peptides that goes above professional medical organizations.

Anyone can make a random statement without backing it up.

Please show me this proof.
 
Please qualify yourself as an authority on peptides that goes above professional medical organizations.

Anyone can make a random statement without backing it up.

Please show me this proof.
Not sure if it is allowed to post this link here, but I hope so:

Tirzepatide shaking test:
https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/peptides-are-fragile.134417358/

HGH shaking test:
https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/does-shaking-hurt-hgh.134401748/

No changes in quantity, purity or whatsoever. its a myth, made up by peptides sources long time ago to explain their really bad products.

Now, since I backed up my claims why peptides are not fragile, can you please back up your claims as well with more than just something you read on a website with no real proof on it? Thank you.

Im not gonna lie, I believed that too for a long time, but after seeing these tests with my own eyes it just makes sense. Think about reconstituted hgh sold by pharma, or any glp-1 drug, or insulin. Its all sold and transported reconstituted, do you believe pharma would sell it like this when there is a high chance of losing what, maybe 50% of potency until it has finally reached the patient?
 
Last edited:
No, I'm NOT saying the highly acclaimed Cochran.org is not a legit source of information.
I'm saying that they are WRONG, that there is no research evidence which supports their comments for our short-chain amino acids, and that I'm quite confidently going to continue doing reconstitution MY WAY, Chef!

Neener neener neener 🤣 🤣 🤣

I AM being a bit of a cheeky monkey. HOWEVER, you may turn your well-honed OCD powers to finding actual research that pertains to our use-case with short peptides for a very long time and NOT FIND ANYTHING RELEVANT.

Anecdotal comments like the Cochran bloviating above ABOUND and many, many other armchair pontificators can be found too. Actual documented research? NOPE.
You will find cautions about "cavitation" caused by misuse of "ultrasonic de-aggregators" that are big as houses but absolutely nothing relevant for a 3ml vial and manual agitation.

CHEF, I'll stake my entire non-existent medical reputation on it!
/s

NOTA BENE

I know you realize this Chef but for the sake of everyone else who may be confused - COCHRANE HANDBOOK is an affiliate marketing organization.

Cochrane publish content designed to harvest names and emails of "peptide researchers" which they sell to their peptide-vendor client: Limitless Nooitropics.

Further, they solicit surfers with a Discount to their "Top-rated Vendor". Press the Buy Now Call To Action button and you'll instantly arrive at Limitless's ecommerce page.


And That's All Fine!
But no one should confuse Cochrane Handbook with an actual AUTHORITY on peptides.

And I suppose next you'll be telling us that four out of five dentists might not actually recommend Trident?
 
To
Please qualify yourself as an authority on peptides that goes above professional medical organizations.

Anyone can make a random statement without backing it up.

Please show me this proof.
To be fair, professional medical organizations will always opt for extreme caution in any advice they give, like throwing out your reconstituted peptides after 28 days in the fridge. Or the “importance” of washing your hands and alcohol swabbing everything so you don’t get a nasty infection when injecting. Not saying it’s a bad practice, but it isn’t really necessary if you have a functioning immune system or don't have a fridge full of nasty bacteria.

COULD you damage your peptides by shaking them or looking at them the wrong way? Sure, it might happen (maybe?), but it isn’t very likely. If it has happened once with one peptide, that’s enough for the general medical advice to be extreme care with all peptides.

Some peptides are more fragile, especially after being reconstituted - in the powder form most of them can take a pretty good beating.

There’s no reason not to be careful, but there also is no need to stress about the smallest mistake messing up your peptides.
 
Last edited:
Implying that it isn’t necessary to take standard precautions prior to injecting anything is really bad information to put out there. Especially since there are clearly quite a few folks here that are very new and trying to learn.
 
Implying that it isn’t necessary to take standard precautions prior to injecting anything is really bad information to put out there. Especially since there are clearly quite a few folks here that are very new and trying to learn.
Well, I didn’t say not to do it. Better safe than sorry.

And I should have added that you definitely want to swab the injection area if it’s an IM injection.

For subq however, it really doesn’t matter too much. It’s safer to take precautions, but it’s unlikely to cause you any harm if you don’t.

You’re free to disagree, but to call it bad information is taking it a bit far. Since it honestly isn’t, it’s just not best practice.

In any case, it wasn’t phrased as an encouragement not to take precautions, but an example of guidelines being on the side of caution even though in practice it’s unlikely to have any consequences.
 
For subq however, it really doesn’t matter too much. It’s safer to take precautions, but it’s unlikely to cause you any harm if you don’t.
All it takes is a break in the skin to introduce bacteria. As someone who has had incredibly painful cellulitis introduced through a minor my break in my skin, which needed three rounds of abx, I'm not taking any chances.
 
Last edited:
All it takes is a break in the skin to introduce bacteria. As someone who has had incredibly painful cellulitis introduced through a minor my break in my skin, which needed three rounds of abx, I'm not taking any chances.
Fair 🙂 And it definitely is a better practice to clean properly.

But I'm guessing that break wasn't done by a sterile syringe?

I probably inject myself subq around 200+ times per year and i skip the cleaning part most of the time because I'm lazy, never had any issues.

Not saying that means it has no risk at all, my point is simply that medical guidelines are on the side of perfect caution - which is good.

My point was just that they are not ultimate truths, especially when it comes to storage and handling - The cleaning was probably a bad example to use.
 
But I'm guessing that break wasn't done by a sterile syringe?
No, but it doesn't really matter what caused the break in the skin when it comes to that. Could have simply been dry skin that cracked. It's usually due to bacteria that's already present on the skin that most of us already have. The break just gives it a mode of entry, as even a sterile syringe can push that bacteria further into the skin. True, it's less likely to happen with a sterile syringe than an insect bite or a scratch, but not impossible.

Once you've had cellulitis, your likelihood of getting it again increases. That was an incredibly painful experience and I almost needed IV abx for it. Easily preventable by prepping the skin before injection.

I've driven my car hundreds of times this year and never had an accident, doesn't mean I'm going to stop wearing my seatbelt.
 
I had this same concern when I started and even found this info stated on a legit respectable medical website - Cochrane. However, I read somewhere that this only applies to certain peptides. While I don't know which those might be, it doesn't seem to apply to glp1's. I've not personally experimented enough to be able to say for sure 1 way or another. But I asked this of multiple people in the beginning and the consensus was that the dripping down the side of the vial and gently swirling is not necessary. I'm probably more skeptical than most, and often rely on what my grandpa told me - Believe nothing you hear or read, and only half of what you see. I have read a lot of contradicting info over the last 3 months. That Jano Q&A dispelled several things that I'd heard numerous times. But even someone with 20 years experience can be wrong, so this remains unsolved in my mind.

I attempted to drip in the first vial I recon'd but was not aware of negative pressure, so the bac water was in and it foamed before I could blink.

Next vial I injected a bit of air first and held the plunger at the tube so I could drip.

I will say that I've noticed less food noise control from research sema vs brand name ozempic. Could that be due to damaged peptides from that blasting the water in? I have no clue.

Since we can do whatever we want, I now strive to release pressure and drip. That first vial lasted me 3 months of titration, so I'm just now starting my second vial, which I dripped down the side, so I'm at the very beginning of testing the difference.

That said, I will add that the bac water blasted into my first vial still had significant results as my appetite is less than half what it was, food noise is significantly reduced, and I've lost 15# without changing what I eat - I just eat less and less frequently. And I don't exercise due to severe chronic pain - 8 herniated discs and 11 bone spurs. So it's working just fine!

So I can say that blasting the water in does not destroy the peptides. Might it slightly harm them resulting in slightly less efficacy... Maybe, a little tiny bit, but not enough to worry about.

I will strive to drip, because my OCD dictates that I do that, but also will not throw out a vial that was blasted with bac.
My research has led me to insert a syringe with the plunger removed into the vial for venting. You are sacrificing a syringe but it gets rid of the vacuum. Leaving that vent in while you are filling with another syringe also prevents you from having to suck air out and regulates the pressure:
 

Trending Topics

Latest Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
4,345
Posts
62,183
Members
11,073
Newest
Jrankro4Lyfe
Top Bottom