Peptides and looksmaxxing: separating TikTok hype from evidence

What did @the.looksmaxxer actually say?

The creator rated a person called Nadeve a 5 out of 10 in a previous video, then revisited him after a visible physical transformation. The verdict this time: a 7.5 out of 10 facially, with an 8.75 "SMV" (sexual market value). The creator credited improvements to his jaw, cheekbones, chin, eye area, skin, haircut, and a height and physique change. Critically, the creator acknowledged that Nadeve claimed "natural remedies" but then immediately walked it back: "it was mostly puberty." That concession is actually the most honest thing said in the entire video, and it matters more than the rest of the content combined.

The video sits in the looksmaxxing genre, where creators use pseudo-scientific vocabulary, things like "IPD," "ramus height," and "filtrum ratio," to frame normal human development as the result of deliberate optimization. The framing implies that these changes are replicable with the right techniques. That implication deserves scrutiny.

Does the science back this up?

Some of it, yes. A lot of it, no. The creator correctly identifies that facial structure changes during adolescence, but then wraps that accurate observation in a framework that attributes those changes to interventions rather than biology.

Puberty-driven craniofacial changes are well-documented. Mandibular growth, including increases in ramus height and mandibular length, continues through the mid-to-late teens and into early adulthood. A longitudinal study by Buschang et al. (2006, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics) showed significant mandibular growth occurring in males through age 17 and beyond. So yes, a young man's jaw getting more defined over a few years is almost entirely expected biology.

"Mewing," the practice of pressing the tongue to the roof of the mouth to theoretically reshape the palate and jaw, has essentially no peer-reviewed evidence supporting its effectiveness in adults. A 2020 review in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery found no clinical evidence that tongue posture exercises produce measurable skeletal changes in adults. In children and adolescents, myofunctional therapy has some modest evidence for dental arch development, but that is a different claim than what looksmaxxing culture promotes.

"IPD" (interpupillary distance) changing naturally is not a thing. This is genetically fixed orbital anatomy. It does not improve with exercises or posture.

What did they get wrong (or right)?

The creator got one thing right and several things wrong. Credit where it is due: saying "it was mostly puberty" is the correct answer, and it is rare to hear that in this content category.

What they got wrong is more significant. Framing normal adolescent development using clinical-sounding anatomical terms like "tall ramus" and "long mandible" implies that these outcomes were achieved or measurable through intervention. They almost certainly were not. The creator never establishes a baseline measurement, never cites imaging or objective data, and never distinguishes what changed because of time versus technique.

The claim about "natural remedies" enhancing looks is left vague and unaddressed. This is a problem. If those remedies include peptide compounds such as BPC-157, GHK-Cu, or growth hormone secretagogues like MK-677, viewers deserve to know that none of these compounds have FDA approval for cosmetic or aesthetic use. Compounded peptides exist in a regulatory gray area, and claiming they produce facial structural changes in healthy young people is not supported by clinical evidence.

Rating someone's face numerically on a public platform also raises real ethical concerns that go beyond the science, but that is a separate conversation.

What should you actually know?

If you are a young man watching this video and wondering whether mewing, peptides, or other "natural remedies" gave Nadeve a better jaw, the honest answer is almost certainly no. His jaw changed because he grew up. That is not a product you can buy or a technique you can learn.

Craniofacial development in males typically continues until the mid-20s. Bone remodeling, soft tissue changes, and changes in body composition during this window can produce dramatic aesthetic differences with zero intervention. A 2019 study by Flores-Mir et al. in the Angle Orthodontist confirmed continued mandibular growth in male subjects well into their early 20s.

Peptide therapies like BPC-157 and TB-500 are being studied for tissue repair and recovery. GHK-Cu has some evidence for skin-related benefits at the cellular level. But none of these compounds have peer-reviewed evidence showing they restructure facial bones or significantly alter skeletal anatomy in otherwise healthy adults. If someone tells you a peptide gave them a better jawline, that is a marketing claim, not a clinical one.

Skin texture improvements, a better haircut, and gaining muscle mass are all legitimate and achievable changes. Those parts of the transformation are real and within reach. The skeletal claims are not.

• Mewing has no peer-reviewed evidence for skeletal change in adults.
• Interpupillary distance is fixed anatomy and does not "improve."
• Adolescent mandibular growth is the most likely explanation for jaw changes in young men.
• No peptide has clinical evidence for restructuring facial bones in healthy people.
• Numeric attractiveness ratings have no standardized scientific basis.