What did @kodi_dyel actually say?
In a sponsored post for his own company, Biomiss Labs, fitness creator @kodi_dyel rattled off a rapid-fire peptide tier list covering roughly 15 compounds. His claims range from BPC-157 for gut health and injury repair, to "tesamorelin" (which he calls "test amount") for visceral fat, CJC-1295 plus ipamorelin for body recomposition, IGF-1 for off-season muscle building, and GHK-Cu for skin and hair. He also calls MOTS-c "cardio in a bottle," labels a compound he calls "SOUPP" a fat burner, recommends KPV for immune support, and closes with L-carnitine for insulin sensitivity and thermoregulation.
It is worth noting upfront: this video is a sales pitch. The creator has a direct financial stake in every product he mentions. That does not make every claim wrong, but it is context you deserve before we go any further.
Does the science back this up?
Partially, and unevenly. A few of these compounds have legitimate research behind them. Several others are being presented with far more confidence than the data warrants. And at least one claim, that tesamorelin burns visceral fat better than any other peptide, is a strong assertion that needs unpacking.
Tesamorelin (likely what he means by "test amount") is actually the most evidence-backed compound he mentions. It is FDA-approved as Egrifta for HIV-associated lipodystrophy, and controlled trials have confirmed reductions in visceral adipose tissue. Falutz et al. (2010, NEJM) showed statistically significant VAT reduction versus placebo. That part holds up. BPC-157 for gut healing is supported by animal studies, including work by Sikiric et al. published repeatedly in Current Pharmaceutical Design, but human RCT data remains thin. CJC-1295 with ipamorelin does stimulate GH pulses, confirmed by Ionescu and Frohman (2006, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism), but calling it a reliable "recomp" tool in healthy adults overstates what the trials actually tested.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
The IGF-1 hypoglycemia warning is actually responsible advice. IGF-1 does carry real hypoglycemia risk, and flagging that is the kind of honest caveat you rarely hear in fitness content. Credit where it is due.
Where he goes off the rails: MOTS-c as "cardio in a bottle" is a marketing phrase, not a scientific finding. The Kim et al. (2021, Nature Communications) paper on MOTS-c and exercise mimicry was conducted in aged mice, not humans doing contest prep. Extrapolating that to bodybuilding is a significant leap. His claim that L-carnitine controls insulin sensitivity and increases body temperature is muddled. L-carnitine is not a peptide at all, it is an amino acid derivative, and the insulin sensitization data in humans is modest and context-dependent (Ruggenenti et al., 2009, Diabetes Care). Lumping it into a peptide list without clarification is sloppy. "Melanatin" appears to be melanotan II, a synthetic melanocortin agonist with a genuinely concerning side effect profile including nausea, spontaneous erections, and potential effects on existing nevi. Presenting it as a casual tanning tool is irresponsible.
What should you actually know?
Most of these compounds are not FDA-approved for the uses described. That matters legally and medically. Purchasing peptides from any online retailer, including the one this creator is actively selling, means you are operating outside standard pharmaceutical oversight. Purity, sterility, and dosing accuracy are not guaranteed by a discount code.
Several compounds mentioned, including BPC-157, TB-500, and ipamorelin, are currently on the FDA's list of bulk drug substances that raise significant safety concerns for compounding purposes. The regulatory environment around peptides is tightening, not loosening. Anyone considering these compounds should be working with a licensed clinician, getting bloodwork, and not making decisions based on a 90-second TikTok sponsored by the person selling the product. The science on some of these is genuinely interesting. The sales format is genuinely not the right vehicle for it.
The bottom line on this video
This is a competently delivered but commercially compromised overview. A few claims, tesamorelin for visceral fat, ipamorelin for GH stimulation, IGF-1 hypoglycemia risk, are grounded in real science. Others, MOTS-c as an exercise substitute, melanotan as a casual cosmetic, L-carnitine as a peptide, range from oversimplified to genuinely misleading. The conflict of interest here is not subtle. Evaluate accordingly.