Which Peptides Actually Work? Separating Science from Hype
- Amber Beane
- 3 days ago
- 4 min read
The HFL Guide to GLP-1s, Growth Hormone Peptides, NAD+, and the Reality Behind Peptide Therapy
In the first article of this series, we discussed what peptides are and how they function as biological signaling molecules.
The next logical question is:
Which peptides actually work?
The answer depends on what you mean by “work.”
Do they produce measurable physiological changes? Some absolutely do.
Do they deliver all the benefits promised on social media? Often, no.
At Health for Life (HFL), we evaluate peptides using three criteria:
Quality of human research
Clinical relevance
Risk-to-benefit ratio
This article reviews three of the most commonly discussed categories of peptides and peptide-related therapies: GLP-1 medications, growth hormone peptides, and NAD+ support.
Category 1: GLP-1 Medications
Evidence Rating: Strong
If there is one peptide-based therapy that has fundamentally changed the landscape of obesity and metabolic health, it is the GLP-1 class.
Examples include:
Semaglutide (Ozempic®, Wegovy®)
Tirzepatide (Mounjaro®, Zepbound®)
These medications mimic naturally occurring gut hormones involved in:
Appetite regulation
Blood sugar control
Gastric emptying
Satiety signaling
Large randomized controlled trials consistently demonstrate significant weight loss and improvements in metabolic health.
The SURMOUNT-1 trial demonstrated average weight reductions approaching 20% with tirzepatide in individuals with obesity.
The STEP-1 trial demonstrated approximately 15% weight loss with semaglutide.
What the Marketing Gets Wrong
Many people view GLP-1 medications as a shortcut.
They are not.
The medications reduce appetite, but they do not:
Build muscle
Improve fitness
Teach healthy eating behaviors
Prevent muscle loss
Without adequate protein intake and resistance training, significant lean tissue loss can occur during weight reduction.
The HFL Position
GLP-1 medications can be powerful tools when clinically indicated.
However, they should always be paired with:
High-protein nutrition
Progressive resistance training
Ongoing monitoring of body composition
At HFL, we view GLP-1 medications as a metabolic tool—not a lifestyle replacement.
Category 2: Growth Hormone Peptides
Evidence Rating: Moderate
Growth hormone–related peptides include:
Sermorelin
Ipamorelin
CJC-1295
These compounds stimulate pathways involved in growth hormone release.
Unlike growth hormone injections, these therapies are designed to influence the body’s natural signaling system.
Potential benefits may include:
Improved sleep quality
Recovery support
Improved body composition
Increased growth hormone secretion
However, human data remain limited compared to GLP-1 medications.
A comprehensive review of growth hormone secretagogues found evidence for increased growth hormone release, but long-term outcomes and clinical significance remain less certain.
What the Marketing Gets Wrong
Growth hormone peptides are often marketed as:
Anti-aging therapies
Energy boosters
Muscle-building shortcuts
Current evidence does not support these broad claims.
Most reported benefits are indirect and likely related to:
Better sleep
Improved recovery
Improved training consistency
The HFL Position
Growth hormone peptides may have a role in select individuals experiencing:
Poor recovery
Sleep disruption
Age-related declines in recovery capacity
However, they should be viewed as an advanced intervention rather than a foundational strategy.
Most clients will experience greater benefits from:
Improving sleep quality
Increasing protein intake
Building strength
before considering peptide therapy.
Category 3: NAD+ Support
Evidence Rating: Emerging
NAD+ is not technically a peptide.
However, it is frequently grouped into the same conversations because of its association with longevity and cellular energy production.
NAD+ plays a critical role in:
Mitochondrial function
Cellular repair
Energy metabolism
Common products include:
Nicotinamide Riboside (NR)
Nicotinamide Mononucleotide (NMN)
Intravenous NAD+
Research consistently shows that NR and NMN can increase NAD+ levels in humans.
However, increasing NAD+ levels is not the same thing as improving health outcomes.
Current studies show mixed results regarding:
Energy
Exercise performance
Cognitive function
Metabolic improvements
What the Marketing Gets Wrong
The assumption that higher NAD+ automatically means:
More energy
Better performance
Slower aging
has not been proven in humans.
The biology is promising.
The outcomes remain uncertain.
The HFL Position
NAD+ support may be reasonable for:
Older adults
High-stress individuals
Those interested in longevity-focused interventions
However, it should be considered an optional optimization strategy—not a primary treatment for fatigue.
What About BPC-157, TB-500, MOTS-c, and Other Trending Peptides?
Evidence Rating: Weak to Insufficient
Many peptides currently promoted online fall into the category of:
Experimental compounds
Research chemicals
Limited human evidence
Examples include:
BPC-157
TB-500
MOTS-c
Epitalon
While some animal studies are intriguing, there is insufficient human evidence to support routine use.
Most have not received FDA approval.
Many lack long-term safety data.
The HFL Position
At this time, we do not recommend these compounds as part of routine health, performance, or weight-management programs.
The Bigger Picture
One of the most important lessons in health and performance is this:
The effectiveness of an intervention depends on the foundation beneath it.
No peptide can compensate for:
Inadequate protein intake
Poor sleep
Sedentary behavior
Lack of resistance training
Chronic stress
The clients who experience the greatest success with advanced therapies are usually the same clients who have already mastered the fundamentals.
The HFL Hierarchy
Before considering peptides, we focus on:
Foundation
Protein-forward nutrition
Progressive strength training
Sleep and recovery
Hormonal and metabolic health
Support
Evidence-based supplementation
Precision
Peptides and medical therapies when clinically indicated
This approach allows us to maximize outcomes while minimizing unnecessary complexity.
Bottom Line
Some peptide-based therapies work exceptionally well.
Others are promising but still emerging.
Others remain largely driven by marketing rather than evidence.
At HFL, we recommend evaluating every intervention through a simple question:
Does the quality of evidence justify the cost, risk, and complexity?
When the answer is yes, peptides may be useful tools.
When the answer is no, the fundamentals remain the most powerful intervention available.
Next in This Series
The HFL Supplement Guide: What We Recommend, What We Don’t, and Why
Comments