What did @greta.div actually say?
She made three distinct claims: peptides are naturally produced in the body, modern diet and lifestyle cause the body to produce fewer of them, and peptide supplementation has become a go-to recommendation in anti-aging, wellness, and aesthetics circles. The framing is that deficiency drives the trend. That last part about who's getting pushed peptides is probably her most accurate observation.
The framing goes roughly like this: your body is supposed to make these compounds, modern living has broken that process, and so wealthy people at med spas are filling the gap with injections or supplements. It's a tidy story. Some of it holds up. Some of it doesn't.
Does the science back this up?
Partially. The basic biology is correct. Peptides are short chains of amino acids, and the body produces many of them endogenously. But the claim that modern diet and lifestyle cause a systemic deficiency in peptides is not well-established in peer-reviewed literature. That is doing a lot of work as a premise.
Take GHK-Cu, the peptide tagged in this video. Pickart and Margolina (2018, Biomolecules) documented declining plasma GHK-Cu levels with age, dropping from roughly 200 ng/mL in young adults to under 80 ng/mL in older individuals. That is an age-related decline, not a diet-induced one. The mechanism is aging biology, not a consequence of eating processed food or sitting at a desk. Conflating the two is a meaningful error.
For peptides like BPC-157 or TB-500 analogs, the body does not naturally circulate them in measurable concentrations the way hormones do. They are not "lacking" in any clinically defined sense. The supplementation logic for those compounds rests on pharmacological effects, not on restoring a depleted pool.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
Credit where it's due: the definition is accurate. Peptides are short amino acid chains, and many are endogenous signaling molecules. She's also right that the med spa and concierge medicine world has latched onto peptides hard. That observation matches what practitioners and trade publications have been reporting for several years.
What she got wrong is the causation behind supplementation. Saying the body is "lacking" peptides "because of our diet and our way of living" is not a claim supported by clinical evidence for most peptides being marketed right now. It sounds intuitive, but intuitive is not the same as evidenced. The decline in something like GHK-Cu is tied to chronological aging, not lifestyle choices in any straightforward way.
The phrase "hypothesized" is doing some honest lifting here. To her credit, she does not say this is proven. But on a 299K-view TikTok, nuance tends to get lost, and viewers likely walk away believing their smoothie habits depleted their peptide reserves.
What should you actually know?
The peptide category is genuinely interesting science that is also genuinely overhyped in consumer settings. Here's what the evidence actually supports versus what it doesn't.
- GHK-Cu has real in vitro and some in vivo data for wound healing and collagen synthesis (Pickart et al., 2015, Journal of Aging Science), but human clinical trials in healthy adults are limited.
- BPC-157 has animal model data suggesting gut and tendon repair effects, but no completed Phase II or Phase III human trials as of 2024.
- Ipamorelin and CJC-1295 stimulate growth hormone release, but the long-term safety profile in healthy aging adults has not been established in large randomized controlled trials.
- Most compounded peptides available through telehealth are not FDA-approved for the indications being marketed. Regulatory status matters and should be part of any informed consent conversation.
The "wealthy people at med spas" observation is also a real access and equity issue. These protocols can run hundreds to thousands of dollars monthly with limited insurance coverage, creating a two-tiered system where experimental interventions go to those who can afford to experiment.
Bottom line
This video is not egregiously wrong, but it leans on an unproven deficiency narrative to justify supplementation. That narrative sounds scientific without being rigorously supported. If you are curious about peptide therapy, talk to a licensed provider who can explain what is known, what is not known, and what the regulatory status of any specific compound actually is.