Growth hormone peptides promise to stall aging—but does the science stack up?
Sermorelin, tesamorelin and other growth hormone peptides are being touted as antiaging elixirs, but what evidence is behind those claims?
The science behind human growth hormone peptides such as sermorelin, tesamorelin, CJC-1295, ipamorelin, and other formulas is being touted as anti-aging elixirs, but the evidence supporting these claims is thin at best. Growth hormone is a protein made by the brain's pituitary gland, and it plays a role in growth, blood sugar control, bone density, and muscle growth.
However, as people age, their levels of the hormone decline, leading some proponents to believe that stimulating the body's production of growth hormone could stave off aging. Despite this, experts caution that the evidence for the purported benefits of these peptides is limited, and the potential risks are significant. For instance, two of the most popular growth hormone compounds, sermorelin and tesamorelin, were initially developed to treat specific health conditions in children and adults with HIV-associated lipodystrophy, respectively.
The lack of large-scale, randomized controlled trials in healthy adults makes it difficult to determine the effects of these compounds on performance, body composition, or longevity. Furthermore, peptides are often "stacked," meaning that individuals typically take multiple compounds simultaneously, which further complicates the ability to isolate the effects of each individual substance.
While there is evidence that growth hormone can increase lean body mass and decrease fat mass, it also comes with side effects such as swelling, joint pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and even diabetes. Therefore, while growth hormone may boost muscle mass, it does not necessarily improve mobility or overall strength. In summary, while the allure of anti-aging peptides is strong, the current scientific evidence suggests that their benefits are largely unproven, and their risks are substantial.
Written by urgent.news from Scientific American's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.