"Anti-aging" is not an endpoint
There is no validated way to measure "aging reversal" in a person. Trials that claim it usually measure a surrogate: a hormone level, a biomarker panel, an "epigenetic clock". None of these has been shown to predict that a treated person will live longer or stay healthier. When a peptide is sold as anti-aging, the honest question is: which measurable outcome, in which trial?
The growth-hormone paradox
The most common longevity pitch for peptides is that GH declines with age, so restoring it with secretagogues (CJC-1295, ipamorelin, sermorelin) must be rejuvenating. The animal literature points the other way: mice with reduced GH/IGF-1 signalling live longer, and people with genetic GH-receptor deficiency show low rates of cancer and diabetes. Randomised trials of GH itself in older adults produce small body-composition changes and meaningful side effects. None of this proves secretagogues are harmful, but it does mean "more GH" is not a self-evidently good longevity strategy, and we grade the claim unsupported.
What is real
Semaglutide's SELECT trial is the closest thing to a healthy-aging outcome in the peptide field: fewer heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular deaths in a high-risk population. That is a specific benefit for a specific group, and it is worth being precise about rather than inflating into "longevity".
What we track
- Any registered human trial of a peptide with a healthspan or all-cause-mortality endpoint.
- Long-term cancer signals for chronic GH/IGF-1 elevation.
- Independent replication of GHK gene-expression findings in vivo.