When we say something is "evidence-backed," what do we actually mean? In the peptide and supplement space, this phrase gets thrown around constantly — often by people trying to sell you something. Let's break down what it should mean.
The evidence hierarchy
Not all studies are created equal. Here's roughly how we think about evidence quality:
Strong evidence (Human RCTs)
- Randomized controlled trials in humans
- Multiple studies showing consistent results
- Published in peer-reviewed journals
- This is the gold standard
Moderate evidence (Human observational + animal)
- Human observational studies (not randomized)
- Well-designed animal studies with plausible mechanisms
- Consistent results across multiple studies
- Promising, but not proven
Weak evidence (Preliminary)
- Single animal studies
- In vitro (cell culture) research only
- Case reports or small case series
- Interesting, but far from conclusive
Anecdotal (Bro science)
- Forum reports and personal testimonials
- Influencer claims without citations
- "Everyone knows this works"
- Not evidence — might be signal, might be noise
Why this matters
When someone tells you BPC-157 "heals everything," they're usually citing animal studies and anecdotes. That doesn't mean it's useless — it means we don't know yet. There's a difference.
Optimize will always tell you where the evidence actually stands. Not to be pessimistic, but because you deserve to know what you're working with.
What we're building
When you ask Optimize about a compound, you'll see:
- An evidence rating (strong, moderate, weak, anecdotal)
- What the actual studies show
- Links to the sources so you can verify
- What we don't know yet
No hype. No agenda. Just what the research says.