A.I. told me this was the optimal stack schedule, I'm skeptical

jason370

Banned
Member Since
Apr 2, 2026
Posts
168
Likes Received
229
Location
NY
United-States
Alternating TSM10, IP10, and CP20 because they overlap in metabolic lanes. What are your thoughts on how to best optimize this stack? I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying I'm confused now, and would appreciate the wisdom and expertise of this community.

1778249347598.webp
 
Alternating TSM10, IP10, and CP20 because they overlap in metabolic lanes. What are your thoughts on how to best optimize this stack? I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying I'm confused now, and would appreciate the wisdom and expertise of this community.

View attachment 22349
If AI said it....it MUST be true!
 
That's is a lot of pinning. You must be burning through needles. Sometimes less is more.. That said you haven't said what your goal is for this stack.
 
What AI are you using?

What are you trying to achieve with the peptides?

I use chatgpt in research scholar mode, plus extra prompts for improved scientific accuracy . And include "do not agree with me unless you can provide evidence". I guarantee it would not recommend that stack , it would say there is no human clinical trial evidence of safety or efficacy for those peptides, for general health or in any specific disease state. ( except tesamorelin for HIV lipodystrophy )

If you ask it the question for each of those peptides. " what is the evidence and quality of the evidence for use in humans of those peptides" you will get a much more complex answer and it is more likely to be scientifically accurate. Though they can still sometimes hallucinate.

AI's in general have a bad habit of agreeing with you, and can prefer a nice coherent story over actual accuracy of the information. An unprompted base model free AI can give pretty bad medical/health/pharmacology advice, or it can give excellent advice, but if it is not telling you basic science like not tested and safe in humans, then it is giving bad advice. It does not always mean peptides are a bad idea, but it is essential that you be given that basic information so you know these are not standard or recommended therapies, are experimental and there are risks, and it needs to tell you what those risks might be, not give you a nicely written out plan that strongly implies it is all perfectly harmless.

And if you decide to use those peptides in that stack or any other way you need to research them and know what they can do and what harms they could cause.
 
i feel like it might not be true, thats why im asking
I was playing around with AI one day and I said it was a liar, it responded by saying it could dig deeper into the subject and possibly adjust it's response!
 
What AI are you using?

What are you trying to achieve with the peptides?

I use chatgpt in research scholar mode, plus extra prompts for improved scientific accuracy . And include "do not agree with me unless you can provide evidence". I guarantee it would not recommend that stack , it would say there is no human clinical trial evidence of safety or efficacy for those peptides, for general health or in any specific disease state. ( except tesamorelin for HIV lipodystrophy )

If you ask it the question for each of those peptides. " what is the evidence and quality of the evidence for use in humans of those peptides" you will get a much more complex answer and it is more likely to be scientifically accurate. Though they can still sometimes hallucinate.

AI's in general have a bad habit of agreeing with you, and can prefer a nice coherent story over actual accuracy of the information. An unprompted base model free AI can give pretty bad medical/health/pharmacology advice, or it can give excellent advice, but if it is not telling you basic science like not tested and safe in humans, then it is giving bad advice. It does not always mean peptides are a bad idea, but it is essential that you be given that basic information so you know these are not standard or recommended therapies, are experimental and there are risks, and it needs to tell you what those risks might be, not give you a nicely written out plan that strongly implies it is all perfectly harmless.

And if you decide to use those peptides in that stack or any other way you need to research them and know what they can do and what harms they could cause.
the exact same thing everyone wants. lose fat, build muscle, sleep better, be healthier.
 
For more specific answers would need to know age, height, start weight, target weight, current weight, lost over how long, any other drugs/peptides/health problems that are relevant etc, exercise level?
 
No human data on AOD. Throw it away. Iparemolin only increases appetite, not sure why you want that. not sure what 500mcg KLOW will do, dose too low.

Keep the reta.
 
For more specific answers would need to know age, height, start weight, target weight, current weight, lost over how long, any other drugs/peptides/health problems that are relevant etc, exercise level?
I appreciate your detailed response!

Age 56
Height 6'5'
Weight:
Starting 301
Target 240
Current 277
Time it took to lose: ten weeks,
Peps: that's essentially my stack up there.
Exercise: Lift 5-6 days a week, walk/run/hike (treadmill) 3-4 days a week.
Eating real light, mosttly protein, in a solid caloric deficit.
Healthy as a horse, just a touch fat. Sleep like the dead.
 
I appreciate your detailed response!

Age 56
Height 6'5'
Weight:
Starting 301
Target 240
Current 277
Time it took to lose: ten weeks,
Peps: that's essentially my stack up there.
Exercise: Lift 5-6 days a week, walk/run/hike (treadmill) 3-4 days a week.
Eating real light, mosttly protein, in a solid caloric deficit.
Healthy as a horse, just a touch fat. Sleep like the dead.
AI was hallucinating.
 
Age 56
Height 6'5'
Weight:
Starting 301
Target 240
Current 277
Time it took to lose: ten weeks,
Peps: that's essentially my stack up there.
Exercise: Lift 5-6 days a week, walk/run/hike (treadmill) 3-4 days a week.
Eating real light, mosttly protein, in a solid caloric deficit.
Healthy as a horse, just a touch fat. Sleep like the dead.
Keep it simple. If you are at this stage already, even enjoying such an envious sleep state, stick to Reta and Tesa first thing in the morning fasted. After nearing your visceral fat goal, IF needed, IF no joint pain, water retention, or any other sides, you can choose the CJC for fun. Right now, you can try eating 30 grams of collagen, vitamin C, and hyaluronic acid daily. You may also do worse than looking at glutamine, glucosamine+chondroitin.
 
That was quite hard to work out what the peptides were from just the abbreviations, I think I worked it out except W-V ( ?wolverine ?) I cannot find W-V on a standard vendor list.

I would agree that from what I have read of the research, AOD probably does not work, so probably not much point in it. Some of the research talked about it killing off fat cells, which is actually something you do not want, as it can worsen insulin resistance and could cause patchy fat cell loss, so it is either a possibly bad idea or it does not work.

DSIP, I have not read much on.

Again from what I have read KLOW has a bunch of very interesting sounding peptides in it, which do have effects, but most of them have not been tested in humans, and it has never been tested as a mixture even in animals. The idea of taking a untested peptide that alters the activity of several thousand different genes in various tissues, just sounds intrinsically risky. My basic logic on it is - if it did what people claim, which is to increase growth of connective tissue in ligaments and in the skin, it could also increase growth of connective tissue in vital organs like the liver or heart ( cirrhosis or heart failure ), which is really something you do not want. So if it works it is dangerous and if it doesn't then there is no point. I cannot see an obvious error in my logic. But trying to argue against KLOW or GLOW seems pointless, after reading hundreds or thousands of posts saying it fixed my bad shoulder or similar, it has been repeated so many times that people just believe it works, just because they have seen it said so many times, regardless of the underlying science.

The secretagogue/gh/ghrelin agonist combo , to me sounds more complicated than it needs to be, Ghrelin agonists can increase weight and appetite, which might be something people want on a bulking cycle, but not otherwise. The only definite disadvantage of using 3 drugs to do the same job instead of one is higher chance of side effects and allergic reactions. Assuming an average of 1 to 5% for a generalised skin rash type allergic response, it is not a completely irrelevant or trivial issue, but not super likely either. But if it was as high as 5% which is not at all uncommon then 3 x that is 15%, rather than 5%.

Any or all of those can cause adverse effects relating to GH or IGF-1, I think the doses are reasonable, but getting IGF-1, blood sugar and hb1ac checked as well as basic cardiovascular risk factors like lipids and bp are a good idea, even if you are not severely obese and obviously at high risk, you are getting to the age where getting that checked out is a good idea anyway. And look up and know what side effects are possible, just so you know and so you are not surprised if you start getting fluid retention or carpal tunnel syndrome.

I would imagine the combination of reta and exercise are doing 90-95% of the work in achieving what you are looking for.
 
That was quite hard to work out what the peptides were from just the abbreviations, I think I worked it out except W-V ( ?wolverine ?) I cannot find W-V on a standard vendor list.

I would agree that from what I have read of the research, AOD probably does not work, so probably not much point in it. Some of the research talked about it killing off fat cells, which is actually something you do not want, as it can worsen insulin resistance and could cause patchy fat cell loss, so it is either a possibly bad idea or it does not work.

DSIP, I have not read much on.

Again from what I have read KLOW has a bunch of very interesting sounding peptides in it, which do have effects, but most of them have not been tested in humans, and it has never been tested as a mixture even in animals. The idea of taking a untested peptide that alters the activity of several thousand different genes in various tissues, just sounds intrinsically risky. My basic logic on it is - if it did what people claim, which is to increase growth of connective tissue in ligaments and in the skin, it could also increase growth of connective tissue in vital organs like the liver or heart ( cirrhosis or heart failure ), which is really something you do not want. So if it works it is dangerous and if it doesn't then there is no point. I cannot see an obvious error in my logic. But trying to argue against KLOW or GLOW seems pointless, after reading hundreds or thousands of posts saying it fixed my bad shoulder or similar, it has been repeated so many times that people just believe it works, just because they have seen it said so many times, regardless of the underlying science.

The secretagogue/gh/ghrelin agonist combo , to me sounds more complicated than it needs to be, Ghrelin agonists can increase weight and appetite, which might be something people want on a bulking cycle, but not otherwise. The only definite disadvantage of using 3 drugs to do the same job instead of one is higher chance of side effects and allergic reactions. Assuming an average of 1 to 5% for a generalised skin rash type allergic response, it is not a completely irrelevant or trivial issue, but not super likely either. But if it was as high as 5% which is not at all uncommon then 3 x that is 15%, rather than 5%.

Any or all of those can cause adverse effects relating to GH or IGF-1, I think the doses are reasonable, but getting IGF-1, blood sugar and hb1ac checked as well as basic cardiovascular risk factors like lipids and bp are a good idea, even if you are not severely obese and obviously at high risk, you are getting to the age where getting that checked out is a good idea anyway. And look up and know what side effects are possible, just so you know and so you are not surprised if you start getting fluid retention or carpal tunnel syndrome.

I would imagine the combination of reta and exercise are doing 90-95% of the work in achieving what you are looking for.
so tesamorelin, out? and thanks, I genuinely appreciate the constructive feedback.
 
so tesamorelin, out? and thanks, I genuinely appreciate the constructive feedback.
Disclaimer: I am an AI, not a doctor. If you are considering metabolic medication, please consult a medical professional to discuss your specific health needs.

This i what I got asking AI about peptides
 
Disclaimer: I am an AI, not a doctor. If you are considering metabolic medication, please consult a medical professional to discuss your specific health needs.

This i what I got asking AI about peptides
you have to prompt it differently. they wont dose, and recommendations are difficult but if you supply the peps and doses, AI will create a stack and tell you why
 
LLMs don't produce facts. They produce probabilities. Stop asking them anything medical.
 
Alternating TSM10, IP10, and CP20 because they overlap in metabolic lanes. What are your thoughts on how to best optimize this stack? I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying I'm confused now, and would appreciate the wisdom and expertise of this community.

View attachment 22349
What is your goal with this stack? (For what goal do you want to optimize?)

Also (just a tip),
When asking AI, feed it reliable information first (e.g. scientific articles from pubmed) and tell it specifically to only look at that data. Asking ChatGPT (or any LLM) at random will not give very reliable results.

I personally use NotebookLM (and Zotero) to curate the data fed into the AI.
 
What is your goal with this stack? (For what goal do you want to optimize?)

Also (just a tip),
When asking AI, feed it reliable information first (e.g. scientific articles from pubmed) and tell it specifically to only look at that data. Asking ChatGPT (or any LLM) at random will not give very reliable results.

I personally use NotebookLM (and Zotero) to curate the data fed into the AI.
1778782575988.webp
 
AI is useful if you are responsible and think critically. It once said MA was a 2 party consent state for recording audio and it took about ten minutes of arguing for me to get it to admit it is a 2 party knowledge state (big difference). Argue with the AI, challenge it, demand receipts, it's such a powerful tool if you use it right.

Also, use different AI. I asked ChatGPT about a peptide stack and it told me not to do it because it was a high risk polypharmacy gamble. Grok gave me real answers. Deepseek went a step further and suggested steroids.
 
The simplest and easiest way to get fairly good pharmacology advice from an AI is just use the research/scholar mode on chatgpt, at least it is not generally going to recommend treatments never tested on humans. Fairly elaborate prompting can get even better answers, I just got it to write one for me focusing on scientific accuracy and reducing hallucinations and not agreeing with me without evidence. And then just copy paste it into new conversations.
 
The simplest and easiest way to get fairly good pharmacology advice from an AI is just use the research/scholar mode on chatgpt, at least it is not generally going to recommend treatments never tested on humans. Fairly elaborate prompting can get even better answers, I just got it to write one for me focusing on scientific accuracy and reducing hallucinations and not agreeing with me without evidence. And then just copy paste it into new conversations.
that's exactly what i do
 
Unfortunately the quality of the answers depends a lot on the quality of the questions. I have found it excellent for difficult pharmacology questions , definitely at specialist doctor level. But having medical training means I use the correct terminology, which makes a lot of difference.
At this point even fairly standard AIs are at least as good as average doctors and the newer thinking models are a fair bit better and close to specialist level, and sometimes better, if you feed them all the right information.

When people or patients input the information , leaving bits out and not always knowing what parts of the story are most important , and not using medical language, their performance drops like a stone and they make fairly serious errors of judgement like not telling people to go to hospital, for serious emergency problems when any vaguely competent doctor would see the issue and its importance very quickly. It is this extreme unevenness in their performance that can make relying on them dangerous. But if your doctor asks it something the chances are they will get a very good answer, though I doubt too many do this in front of patients .
 
Unfortunately the quality of the answers depends a lot on the quality of the questions. I have found it excellent for difficult pharmacology questions , definitely at specialist doctor level. But having medical training means I use the correct terminology, which makes a lot of difference.
At this point even fairly standard AIs are at least as good as average doctors and the newer thinking models are a fair bit better and close to specialist level, and sometimes better, if you feed them all the right information.

When people or patients input the information , leaving bits out and not always knowing what parts of the story are most important , and not using medical language, their performance drops like a stone and they make fairly serious errors of judgement like not telling people to go to hospital, for serious emergency problems when any vaguely competent doctor would see the issue and its importance very quickly. It is this extreme unevenness in their performance that can make relying on them dangerous. But if your doctor asks it something the chances are they will get a very good answer, though I doubt too many do this in front of patients .
so, thoughts on my stack and how to make it more efficient?
 
In terms of the most important to least important. 1. exercise/lifting 2. reta 3. tesamorelin

I am in general fairly skeptical about a lot of the popular peptides, given that despite everyone saying how well they work, if they have never had any human testing, they are by definition not safe, and it is pretty doubtful they do what is claimed - this applies especially to KLOW and GLOW. I already explained my logic on it.

DSIP , really have not read the research. Melatonin is very well studied and non addictive and at doses less than 4mg /day is generally regarded as safe.

Tesa on its own is simpler and safer than 3 different GH/ghrelin/IGF-1 raising drugs, at least it has quite a few human studies in HIV lipodystrophy and one in diabetes, which surprised me by not showing increased sugar levels, I do not really understand why this is the case.
The biggest disadvantage of 3 peptides instead of one is increased risk of side effects and allergic responses, and the difficulty in working out what is responsible if adverse effects appear. And the ghrelin agonist could increase weight. Tesa does seem to have a high chance of developing allergies, mostly localised, but in another thread here, there might be a chance of anaphylaxis. So maybe get an epi pen, and stop if any evidence at all of an immune reaction separate to the injection site. The fact that this is known for tesa is because it has had a decent amount of human testing. It is unlikely the same info exists for cjc or ipamorelin.

AOD , I am fairly sure does not work.
 

Trending Topics

Forum Statistics

Threads
17,643
Posts
183,059
Members
59,326
Newest
Burebista01
Back
Top Bottom