If you've ever tried to research peptides online, you know the drill:
Reddit: Thousands of anecdotes, conflicting advice, and no way to verify who knows what they're talking about. One person swears by a protocol, another says it did nothing. Who's right?
Influencers: Usually sponsored, rarely citing sources, and incentivized to make everything sound amazing. "This changed my life" doesn't tell you anything about the actual evidence.
Vendor sites: Obviously biased. They're selling the stuff. Of course they think it works.
PubMed: Technically the right place, but abstracts are written for researchers, not humans. Understanding a single study requires domain knowledge most people don't have.
The real problem
It's not that good information doesn't exist. It does — scattered across journals, buried in forums, locked behind paywalls. The problem is synthesis. Nobody's putting it together in a way that's:
- Actually accurate (citing real research)
- Actually readable (explaining mechanisms clearly)
- Actually practical (dosing, timing, what to monitor)
- Actually unbiased (no products to sell)
What we need
An assistant that can search the research, rate the evidence quality, and explain it in plain English. That checks interactions before you stack compounds. That tells you what's proven, what's promising, and what's pure speculation.
That's what we're building with Optimize.
Join us
We're launching soon. If you're tired of guessing, join the waitlist.