What did @menno.e.schwartz actually say?
The creator gave practical advice on subcutaneous peptide injection sites, saying he avoids abdominal injections because of low body fat and visible inflammation. His preference is the glute area, which he describes as easier to hide and less likely to cause noticeable swelling. Regarding GHK-Cu specifically, he claims "pin my glutes with GHQ, I don't get any burn" and suggests intramuscular injection also reduces burn compared to abdominal subQ.
He also referenced injecting "step Q" (likely subQ, subcutaneous) and acknowledged that not all peptides cause inflammation equally. The video ends with a plug for a peptide source via DM, which is a separate concern we address below.
Does the science back this up?
The injection site burn and inflammation points are plausible and partially supported by pharmacology, but the evidence is largely anecdotal. There are no published clinical trials comparing GHK-Cu injection site reactions across anatomical locations in humans.
What we do know: subcutaneous tissue thickness varies significantly by body region. Abdominal subQ fat in leaner individuals can be 4-8mm, compared to 10-30mm in gluteal regions (Gibney et al., 2010, Diabetes Care). Thinner tissue increases the likelihood of inadvertent intradermal injection, which causes more localized inflammation and pain than deeper subQ placement. This pharmacological logic does support the creator's observation, even if he doesn't frame it that way.
GHK-Cu (copper peptide GHK) is a naturally occurring tripeptide. At reconstituted concentrations used in injectable preparations, it can cause localized histamine-like reactions in some users, though peer-reviewed human injection data is sparse. Most GHK-Cu published research covers topical or in vitro applications (Pickart et al., 2015, Journal of Aging Research), not injectable formulations.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
He got the tissue-depth logic right, even if accidentally. Leaner injection sites do increase the risk of painful, visible injection reactions. That part holds up. Recommending glutes as a lower-visibility site with more subQ cushion is reasonable harm-reduction advice for people who are already injecting peptides.
What he got wrong, or at least incomplete: the burn from GHK-Cu (or any peptide) is not purely a site issue. It also depends on reconstitution solvent, pH of the solution, injection speed, and needle gauge. None of those variables were mentioned. Attributing the absence of burn entirely to injection location oversimplifies the pharmacology.
He also never mentions sterile technique, which is a significant omission. Subcutaneous injections, especially self-administered, carry infection risk if not done correctly. Staphylococcus aureus cellulitis and abscess formation are documented complications of self-injection (Binswanger et al., 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine, though in a different population context).
The DM-for-source solicitation at the end is a red flag. Directing viewers to unregulated peptide suppliers bypasses any physician oversight, which is where this video crosses a line from educational into potentially harmful territory.
What should you actually know?
If you are using or considering injectable peptides, injection technique matters more than most online content acknowledges. Site rotation, needle gauge, reconstitution quality, and bacteriostatic water vs. other solvents all affect both comfort and safety. The glutes being a reasonable site is not wrong, but it is not the whole picture.
GHK-Cu in injectable form is not FDA-approved for any indication. It is used in compounded formulations, which are regulated differently from approved drugs. Compounded peptides vary in purity and concentration across suppliers, and that variability directly affects injection reactions and safety. A burn that disappears when switching sites might just as easily indicate a formulation issue as a technique one.
Any peptide injection protocol should involve a licensed provider who can assess your anatomy, health history, and medication interactions. The convenience of a DM-sourced peptide supplier does not replace that oversight.