Dosing confidence is not evenly distributed. Semaglutide has a regulator-set escalation schedule. MOTS-c has no human dose-ranging study of any kind. Sorting peptides by the evidence behind the number is more useful than listing the numbers.
This page is a map of that evidence, not a set of protocols. Peptigrity is an independent review platform and does not sell peptides or tell anyone what to take. Every compound below links to its own evidence record in the complete peptide guide with 118 compounds, and the arithmetic that turns any chosen amount into a syringe volume sits in how to calculate peptide doses with the peptide dosing calculator and the reconstitution calculator.
What kind of dosing evidence does a peptide actually have?
Peptide dosing evidence falls into three tiers, and the tier matters more than the number. Tier 1 compounds have a dose set by an approved label — semaglutide, tirzepatide, tesamorelin and PT-141 among them. Tier 2 compounds have a dose that appeared in a published human trial but no approval, including retatrutide at 12 mg and cagrilintide at 4.5 mg weekly. Tier 3 compounds have no human dose-ranging study at all, which describes MOTS-c, FOXO4-DRI, PEG-MGF, IGF-1 LR3 and AHK-Cu.
Tier | What exists | Who sets the number | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
Tier 1 — approved label | Regulator-reviewed dose, route, frequency and in-use period | A regulator, from a full submission | Semaglutide, tirzepatide, tesamorelin, PT-141 |
Tier 2 — human trial, no approval | A dose tested in people, published, but never approved for the use in question | Trial investigators, for a specific population and endpoint | Retatrutide, survodutide, cagrilintide, ipamorelin, hexarelin, thymosin β4, AOD-9604 |
Tier 3 — no human dose-ranging study | Animal work, in vitro work, or nothing | Nobody — every circulating figure is extrapolated or invented | MOTS-c, FOXO4-DRI, PEG-MGF, IGF-1 LR3, IGF-1 DES, AHK-Cu, PNC-27, TB-500 |
Two boundary conditions apply to that table before anything else. A tier is jurisdiction-specific. Mazdutide holds two Chinese marketing authorisations and no FDA approval; GHRP-2 is approved in Japan as a diagnostic reagent and nowhere as a treatment; thymalin holds a Russian registration for immunodeficiency states. An approval exists in each case, and it is not the approval most Western buyers assume.
A tier is also indication-specific and route-specific. Tesamorelin's approved dose is approved for reduction of excess abdominal fat in HIV-infected adults with lipodystrophy, and its label states the drug "is not indicated for weight loss management as it has a weight neutral effect." A dose validated for one population, by one route, for one endpoint is not a general-purpose number. That single distinction accounts for most of the confusion this page exists to clear up.
Which peptides have a dose set by an approved label?
Four compounds in common circulation have a dose written by a regulator. Semaglutide starts at 0.25 mg weekly and escalates to 2.4 mg, with a 7.2 mg high dose approved in March 2026. Tirzepatide was trialled at 5, 10 and 15 mg and is approved as Mounjaro and Zepbound. Tesamorelin is 1.28 mg subcutaneously daily from an 11.6 mg vial. PT-141 is a single 1.75 mg subcutaneous injection, no more than one in 24 hours.
Compound | Route | Amount | Frequency | Duration | Evidence level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subcutaneous | 0.25 mg escalating to 2.4 mg; 7.2 mg approved March 2026 | Once weekly | Chronic — approved for continued use | Approved label | |
Subcutaneous | 5, 10 and 15 mg in SURMOUNT-1 | Once weekly | 72 weeks in trial | Approved label (Mounjaro NDA 215866, Zepbound NDA 217806) | |
Subcutaneous | 1.28 mg from an 11.6 mg multi-dose vial at 8 mg/mL | Once daily | Indefinite; vial discarded after 7 days | Approved label (BLA 022505) | |
Subcutaneous, abdomen or thigh | 1.75 mg in 0.3 mL | As needed, ≥45 minutes before activity, max 1 per 24 hours | "More than 8 doses per month is not recommended" | Approved label (NDA 210557) | |
Slow intravenous, fasting | 100 µg in adults; 2 µg/kg to a 100 µg maximum in children 4–17 | Single injection | Single diagnostic use | Approved label, Japan, diagnostic only |
Read the duration column, because it is where label doses are misread most often. Semaglutide's approval covers chronic use and weight regain after discontinuation is well documented, which makes it maintenance therapy rather than a course. Tesamorelin is the same shape: patients switched to placebo in the extension phases regained 25 cm² and 24 cm² of visceral fat, and the JAIDS authors wrote that the benefit was "rapidly lost in those switching from tesamorelin to placebo". A "68-week protocol" for semaglutide is a trial duration, not a treatment plan.
The label also rules things out, in wording worth quoting rather than paraphrasing. PT-141's Limitations of Use read: "Not indicated for treatment of HSDD in postmenopausal women or in men." And: "Not indicated to enhance sexual performance." That second sentence excludes most of the grey-market use case, and it was written by the regulator that saw the trial data. There is no annual cap in that label; the annual figure circulating online is not in the document.
One label change catches out even careful readers. Tesamorelin's presentation moved in March 2025 through supplement SUPPL-20: EGRIFTA WR is an 11.6 mg multi-dose vial reconstituted with 1.3 mL of bacteriostatic water to 8 mg/mL, giving seven doses, discarded after seven days — and the daily dose dropped from 1.4 mg to 1.28 mg. Guidance written for the old 2 mg single-dose presentation gets both the concentration and the volume wrong. The tesamorelin calculator works from the current concentration. These four compounds sit across the weight loss and metabolic, growth hormone and libido and sexual wellness categories.
Which peptides have a human trial dose but no approval?
Tier 2 compounds have a real number attached to real people, and the number belongs to that trial rather than to the compound. Retatrutide's 24.2% weight loss came from 12 mg in a phase 2 trial of 338 people over 48 weeks. Cagrilintide reached 10.8% at 4.5 mg weekly over 26 weeks. Ipamorelin's only randomised human dose was 0.03 mg/kg intravenously twice daily, in a trial that missed its endpoint at p = 0.15. Each figure carries its population, route and duration with it.
Compound | Route in the published study | Amount tested | Study | Evidence level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Subcutaneous | 12 mg | n=338, 48 weeks, −24.2% | Phase 2 — no phase 3 results publication exists | |
Subcutaneous | 6.0 mg and 3.6 mg; 4.8 mg in MASH | n=725, 76 weeks, −13.0%; n=293 MASH, 62% vs 14% | Phase 3 obesity; phase 2 histology | |
Subcutaneous | 4.5 mg once weekly | 26 weeks, −10.8% vs 3.0% placebo | Phase 2 | |
Intravenous only | 0.03 mg/kg twice daily | n=117, p = 0.15, endpoint missed | Phase 2, negative | |
Subcutaneous and intravenous | 1.5 µg/kg SC twice daily; 2 µg/kg IV | 16-week study; acute studies | Published human dosing, far below market convention | |
Thymosin β4 (not TB-500) | Intravenous, recombinant protein | 0.05–25 µg/kg | n=54 single dose; n=30 over ten days | Phase 1 — different molecule, different route |
Intravenous bolus or infusion; SC trigger | 1 µg/kg IV for maximal LH; 6.4 and 12.8 nmol/kg SC | George et al. 2011; IVF trigger studies | Published human dosing, hospital setting | |
Oral | Six randomised trials, ~893 subjects | Phase 2b n=300 and n=502; 1.8 kg over placebo at 12 weeks | Phase 2b — programme discontinued 2007 |
The route column is doing the most work in that table, and it is the column protocols drop. Ipamorelin's only published human exposures were intravenous, which does not support the 200–300 mcg subcutaneous convention in circulation. The entire human record for AOD-9604 was generated orally, while the grey market injects it — treat any protocol citing AOD-9604 human data alongside subcutaneous dosing as internally inconsistent. Thymosin β4's clean phase 1 safety result was for intravenous recombinant protein at microgram-per-kilogram doses, against community TB-500 protocols running 2–4 mg per week subcutaneously: a different molecule, a different route, and roughly three orders of magnitude of difference in exposure.
Scale is the second trap. Kisspeptin is sold in 5 mg and 10 mg vials, while the intravenous bolus producing maximal LH stimulation was 1 µg/kg — about 0.07 mg for a 70 kg adult. A single market vial is therefore roughly 70 to 140 times that dose, by a route nobody has published. Hexarelin runs the same way: published human dosing is in micrograms per kilogram, against milligram-scale community conventions.
Two compounds in this tier hold registrations that Western buyers rarely see. Semax holds a Russian approval, and the 1997 stroke study used 12 mg/day in moderate stroke and 18 mg/day in severe. Selank's only dose with a documented basis is the registered one — two drops per nostril, three times daily, in 14-day courses of a 0.15% nasal drop — and no human pharmacokinetic study of Selank has been published. Both sit in cognitive and neuroprotective peptides.
Which peptides have no human dose-ranging study at all?
Tier 3 is larger than most buyers expect and includes several of the most heavily sold compounds. MOTS-c has no published human dose-ranging study and no human pharmacokinetic study — no measured half-life, no bioavailability, no distribution data. FOXO4-DRI has never been given to a human, with ClinicalTrials.gov returning totalCount: 0 nine years after the 2017 Cell paper. FDA found no human exposure data of any kind for PEG-MGF, by any route. IGF-1 LR3, IGF-1 DES, AHK-Cu and PNC-27 sit in the same position.
Compound | What the registry and literature return | What that means for a dose | Evidence level |
|---|---|---|---|
One recruiting trial, nothing reported; FDA found no human administration study at all | Every mg-per-week protocol is scaled allometrically from mouse studies | No human data | |
totalCount: 0 — not one registered trial worldwide | No phase 1, no safety study, no pharmacokinetics; the subcutaneous route is untested | No human data | |
No human exposure data of any kind, per FDA, by any route | Every dose, interval and post-workout timing convention was invented | No human data | |
No human pharmacokinetic or safety study ever published | No exposure benchmark on a molecule engineered to evade IGFBP-3 binding | No human data | |
Zero registered studies | No PK, no dose-ranging, no compound-specific safety data | No human data | |
One 2007 in vitro and ex vivo paper; zero human studies | No measured concentration reaches a human follicle from any preparation | No human data | |
Zero registered studies, verified through two query forms | No phase 1, no established human dose | No human data | |
One phase 1 (NCT02637284, n≈42) that never reported | No human PK data exists; dosing is extrapolated from rodents | No human PK | |
Zero human studies of any injected route | Topical evidence does not transfer to an injection | No human data (injected) | |
No validated human dosing protocol exists | The 5–10 mg daily 10-day course descends from Khavinson's course approach and community practice | No dose-ranging study | |
No validated human dosing regimen | No published regimen to work from | No dose-ranging study | |
No human trial of the no-DAC form at all | The DAC form's data does not transfer | No human data (no-DAC) |
"No human dose-ranging study exists" is a complete answer, not an evidence gap waiting to be filled by inference. It is also compatible with excellent manufacturing: the Purity Index records MOTS-c at 99.43 across 494 recency-weighted tests from 23 laboratories (verified August 2026). Supply-chain quality and clinical evidence are independent variables, and a compound can be beautifully made and completely unstudied at the same time. Several of these sit in immune support and longevity and skin and anti-aging.
Where do the numbers in community protocols come from?
Community protocol numbers come from three places, none of them a human dose-ranging study. Allometric scaling from rodent experiments produces most of them — a rough estimate under good conditions and no substitute for a phase 1 trial. Convention produces the rest, repeated until it acquires the appearance of a source. And on at least one compound the figures were simply invented: FDA found no human exposure data for PEG-MGF, yet dose, interval and timing conventions all circulate.
The mechanics of how a number gains authority are worth naming, because they are ordinary rather than fraudulent. A company statement is reported in the press, the press figure is quoted without its provenance, the duration drifts, and within a few links the result is attributed to a trial that has published nothing. Retatrutide is the documented case: the 28% at 80 weeks figure traces to press reporting of a company statement in May 2026 and could not be verified against a primary source, while a 30.3% at 104 weeks figure has no source we could find at all. This site previously published both and corrected them.
The second mechanism is misapplied correlation. Observational work associating higher naturally circulating MOTS-c with better metabolic markers says something about mitochondrial function as a biomarker and nothing about injecting synthetic MOTS-c subcutaneously, at doses nobody has established, for durations nobody has studied. That is how a compound with zero human trials acquires a dosing protocol.
The third is citation substitution, where a dose belonging to one molecule migrates to another. The favourable adult growth hormone results usually attributed to sermorelin come from a study of [Nle27]GHRH(1-29)NH₂ — a different molecule. AOD-9604's oral human data gets attached to injectable HGH Fragment 176-191, which is a different compound at 1,799 Da against 1,815 Da. Sixteen daltons and one route separate the evidence from the thing being sold.
Does the label milligram equal the peptide milligram?
Frequently not, and the gap is silent. A vial labelled 10 mg of MOTS-c TFA salt contains roughly 9.5 mg of peptide, because free base, acetate and TFA forms span 114 daltons — more than 5% of the mass being weighed. Fill quantity moves independently: tirzepatide variance runs +2.6% to +26.7%, IGF-1 LR3 runs +1% to +72%, and a 94% overage is on record on cagrilintide. Purity and quantity are different axes and fail independently.
Vial form | Molecular weight | What a 10 mg label means |
|---|---|---|
Free base | 2,174.6 | The reference mass every rodent-derived MOTS-c protocol implicitly assumes |
Acetate | 2,234.64 | Heavier than free base — the certificate must state it for the arithmetic to close |
TFA salt | 2,288.6 | Roughly 9.5 mg of peptide |
A missing salt line does not make a certificate look incomplete, produce a visible discrepancy or lower the purity figure. It means the dose calculation used a different quantity than the scale did, in a direction that cannot be inferred from anything else on the page. The chemistry is set out in TFA versus acetate versus amidate peptide salt forms, and the quantity problem in why 10 mg isn't 10 mg.
Fill variance points in a direction that matters. A 26.7% overage on tirzepatide, titrated in 2.5 mg steps, is a meaningful dosing error running toward the gastrointestinal adverse effects people discontinue for — vials labelled 10 to 65 mg have tested between 10.71 and 68.1 mg. IGF-1 LR3's +72% sits on a compound whose known class effect is hypoglycaemia. Where an assayed quantity exists, calculate from the assay rather than the label.
How do you turn a chosen amount into a syringe volume?
The arithmetic is deterministic even when the dose is not. Concentration equals peptide mass divided by diluent volume, and injection volume equals dose divided by concentration. A 10 mg vial reconstituted with 2 mL gives 5 mg/mL; a 250 mcg dose is 0.25 mg, so 0.25 ÷ 5 = 0.05 mL, which is 5 units on a U-100 syringe. That example is arithmetic on stated inputs, not a recommendation, and it says nothing about whether 250 mcg is an appropriate amount of anything.
Keep the two questions apart, because they fail for different reasons. Which amount to use is an evidence question, answered by the tier this page has just assigned. How much liquid that amount occupies is a maths question, answered identically for every compound in every tier. Conflating them is how a mouse-derived estimate arrives in a syringe wearing the confidence of a calculation.
Full worked examples, unit conventions and the errors that produce ten-fold and thousand-fold mistakes are in how to calculate peptide doses. The mixing procedure itself, including sterile technique and why diluent runs down the vial wall, is in reconstituting peptides step by step. Compound-specific tools include the semaglutide calculator, the tirzepatide calculator and the MOTS-c calculator, each working from the number you give it — so a mislabelled salt form propagates straight through.
Which peptide dosing claims survive the evidence?
Three of the eleven claims most often made about peptide dosing hold up. Approved labels do specify exact amounts, routes and in-use periods, and quoting them is legitimate. Reconstitution arithmetic is deterministic. Purity and quantity are separate measurements. The rest — that community protocols are evidence-based, that mouse doses scale reliably, that a milligram on a label is a milligram of peptide — fail against the record.
Claim | Evidence | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
Approved labels state exact dose, route and in-use period | Semaglutide, tirzepatide, tesamorelin and PT-141 labels all do | Correct |
Reconstitution arithmetic is deterministic | Concentration and volume follow from stated inputs | Correct |
Purity and quantity are separate measurements | Purity is a proportion; net content is a quantity | Correct |
Community protocols reflect published human dosing | Ipamorelin, TB-500 and AOD-9604 conventions all contradict their own trial route | False |
Mouse doses scale reliably to people | Allometric scaling is an estimate, not a phase 1 trial | Not established |
A 10 mg label means 10 mg of peptide | TFA salt spans 114 Da; fill variance runs to +72% | False |
MOTS-c has a safe established dose | No human dose-ranging study exists | Unknown |
PEG-MGF timing protocols come from research | FDA found no human exposure data of any kind | Invented |
Retatrutide's 24.2% is a phase 3 result | Phase 2, n=338, 48 weeks | Wrong phase |
Tesamorelin causes weight loss | Label: "weight neutral effect" | Contradicted by the label |
A trial duration is a treatment length | Semaglutide is approved for chronic use; STEP 1 stopped at 68 weeks by design | Category error |
What do 11,852 independent lab tests say about dose accuracy?
Peptigrity tracks 530 shops and 11,852 independent lab tests across 118 peptides, with 1,283 community reviews (verified August 2026), and trust scores weight community reviews and independently verified HPLC purity equally at 50% each. On the compounds this page names, testing is deep and quantity is the recurring failure: tirzepatide sits at 99.75% across 930 tests from five named laboratories, IGF-1 LR3 at 98.51% across 125 tests, and MOTS-c at 99.43 across 494 tests from 23 laboratories (verified August 2026).
Compound | Purity Index | Tests · laboratories | Quantity variance on record |
|---|---|---|---|
Tirzepatide | 99.75% | 930 tests, 5 named labs, 227 shops selling | +2.6% to +26.7% |
Retatrutide | 99.67% | 1,150 tests, 230 shops selling | −4% to +22.5% |
MOTS-c | 99.43 | 494 tests, 23 laboratories | Salt form frequently unstated |
IGF-1 LR3 | 98.51% | 125 tests, 220 verified shops | +1% to +72% |
PEG-MGF | 99.38% | 27 tests, 219 verified shops | — |
Tirzepatide price data shows 14 shops in stock, median $5.67/mg, lowest $1.17/mg on a 60 mg vial (verified 9 August 2026) across 48 compared offers, and MOTS-c price data shows 72 shops in stock at a median of $4.50/mg (verified August 2026). Those figures exclude shipping, taxes and customs, coupon codes, bulk tiers, multi-vial kits and account-gated pricing.
One number deserves to be sat with. Retatrutide has 1,150 independent lab tests behind a compound with no published phase 3 result — the supply chain is better characterised than the drug. Purity data has quietly become a substitute for clinical evidence in how these compounds are discussed, and it cannot do that job. Individual results with the testing laboratory named are searchable in the lab test database, and vendor-level detail sits on the tirzepatide compound page.
How do you check a dose figure before you act on it?
Four checks separate a dose with a source from a dose with a history. Find the primary document — a label, a trial publication with an n and a duration, or nothing. Check the route and population the figure was generated in. Check the salt form and assayed quantity on the batch you hold. Check the phase, because phase 2 and phase 3 are routinely swapped in circulation. Each check resolves to a yes or a no.
Check | What it confirms | How | Red flag |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary source for the number | The dose exists in a label or publication | FDA label section, or a PMID with n and duration | A figure traced only to press reporting or vendor copy |
Route and population | The figure applies to what you are doing | Compare trial route against market route | IV or oral data cited for a subcutaneous protocol |
Trial phase | The strength of the number | Registry entry or publication title | Phase 2 result described as phase 3 |
Salt form | Which mass was weighed | Salt named on the CoA, matching the MS result | Not stated — a silent >5% offset |
Assayed quantity | Peptide mass actually present | Net content or amino acid analysis on the batch | Purity quoted as though it were quantity |
In-use period | How long the reconstituted vial is good for | Label, where one exists | No date on the vial |
The trial that would settle this
No single trial settles a question this broad, but one study design settles it compound by compound: the phase 1 human dose-ranging and pharmacokinetic study that does not exist for any tier 3 compound. Until one runs, every milligram figure for MOTS-c, PEG-MGF, IGF-1 LR3, AHK-Cu and FOXO4-DRI is an extrapolation wearing a decimal point. For tier 2, the missing study is the phase 3 that converts a trial dose into an approved one.
Element | Requirement | Why it is the gap |
|---|---|---|
Phase 1 dose-ranging | Ascending doses in healthy volunteers, by the route actually used | Neither dose-ranging nor PK exists for any tier 3 compound |
Pharmacokinetics | Measured half-life, bioavailability, distribution | MOTS-c, PEG-MGF and IGF-1 LR3 have none; intervals are guessed |
Route matching | Subcutaneous, since that is what the market sells | Ipamorelin, thymosin β4 and AOD-9604 human data are IV or oral |
Phase 3 outcome trial | Powered, randomised, in a defined population | Retatrutide's headline is phase 2, n=338 |
Quantity control | Assayed vials, not label-declared | Variance to +72% is on record in this market |
Registration | Pre-specified endpoints, posted results | NCT01280344 completed in May 2014 and never posted results |
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a standard peptide dose?
No. There is no dose that applies across compounds, and there is often no dose that applies within one. Approved labels give exact amounts for four compounds in common circulation; for a large group including MOTS-c, PEG-MGF and FOXO4-DRI, no human dose-ranging study has ever been published, which means there is no established figure to standardise around.
Where do the mcg-per-day numbers on vendor sites come from?
Mostly from allometric scaling of rodent experiments, and sometimes from nothing at all. FDA found no human exposure data of any kind for PEG-MGF, yet dose, injection interval and post-workout timing conventions all circulate for it. Where a figure has a real source, that source is usually a trial in a different population by a different route.
Does a high purity result mean the dose is accurate?
No, and this is the most common confusion in the market. Purity is a proportion — how much of the sample is a single species. Net content is a quantity — how much peptide is in the vial. They fail independently, which is why a 99% pure vial can be substantially underfilled or, in tirzepatide's case, run 26.7% over label.
Can I use the trial dose from a published study?
The trial dose belongs to that trial's population, route, duration and endpoint. Ipamorelin's only randomised human dose was intravenous, AOD-9604's entire human record is oral, and kisspeptin's was delivered by infusion in hospital. Lifting a number out of that context changes the experiment, and anything medical belongs with a clinician rather than an article.
Why do approved and unapproved compounds cost about the same?
Because the grey market prices milligrams rather than regulatory standing. Tirzepatide, an approved drug, has a median of $5.67/mg while MOTS-c, which has never been given to a person in a published dose-ranging study, has a median of $4.50/mg (verified August 2026). Price carries no information about evidence.
What should I do if a source and a label disagree?
Follow the label. Where an approved label exists it is the source of truth for dosing, and it should be quoted rather than paraphrased. The frequent case is a label that has changed: tesamorelin moved to an 11.6 mg multi-dose vial at 8 mg/mL with a 1.28 mg daily dose in March 2025, and most circulating guidance still describes the 2 mg or 1.4 mg presentations.
Where this leaves peptide dosing
Dosing evidence is the axis that reorders this entire market, and it does not line up with price, purity or popularity. Four compounds have a regulator-set number, a larger group has a number belonging to one trial in one population by one route, and a substantial group — including several of the best-selling and best-manufactured compounds on the platform — has no human dose-ranging study of any kind. Knowing which situation applies is prior to every other question.
Browse the complete peptide guide with 118 compounds (verified August 2026), or the bioregulator peptides category. For per-injection volume, use the peptide dosing calculator alongside the reconstitution calculator. Compare shops through independent lab tests and community-verified shop reviews.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Peptides discussed may be investigational compounds not approved by the FDA (or equivalent regulators in your jurisdiction) for human use. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider before using any peptide or research compound. Peptigrity is an independent review platform and does not sell, endorse, or recommend specific products or vendors.
