Joseph Rinoza Plazo's Instagram post about peptides for running performance makes some bold claims about MOTS-C, "Klow," and NAD enhancing endurance and recovery. Most of these substances have limited human evidence, and some don't exist in commercial peptide therapy.
What does this video actually claim?
Plazo promotes three substances for marathon performance: MOTS-C for endurance, "Klow" for resilience, and NAD for what he calls "cellular fire." He frames these not as shortcuts but as signals that remind your body "who it used to be."
The post suggests these peptides can help runners recover smarter and perform better. He directs followers to check with @rtauro_209 for "legit sources" but doesn't cite any specific studies himself.
The language is motivational rather than medical, but the implied claims about performance enhancement are clear.
Do these peptides actually work for runners?
The evidence is thin to nonexistent for most of these claims. MOTS-C (mitochondrial-derived peptide) has shown some promise in mouse studies for exercise capacity, but human data is extremely limited.
A 2021 study by Reynolds et al. in Nature Communications found MOTS-C improved exercise capacity in aged mice, but no published trials have tested it in human athletes. The peptide isn't even approved by the FDA for any use.
"Klow" appears to be entirely fictional or a brand name not found in any peptide research databases. NAD (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide) supplements have mixed results, with some studies showing minimal benefit for athletic performance.
What did he get wrong?
The biggest problem is presenting experimental substances as proven performance enhancers. MOTS-C research is preliminary at best, and "Klow" doesn't seem to exist in legitimate peptide literature.
The phrase about peptides "reminding your body who it used to be" is marketing speak without scientific basis. Peptide therapy doesn't work through cellular memory or nostalgia.
Directing people to an Instagram account for "legit sources" instead of peer-reviewed research is also questionable. Real scientific evidence doesn't typically come through social media referrals.
What should runners actually know about peptides?
Most peptides marketed for athletic performance lack strong human studies. The few that show promise, like BPC-157 for injury recovery, still need more research before recommendations can be made.
Legal peptides for performance are limited. Growth hormone releasing peptides like CJC-1295 and ipamorelin have some research, but they're not approved for athletic enhancement and carry potential side effects.
Runners looking for proven performance aids should focus on established methods: proper training, nutrition, sleep, and recovery protocols that actually have decades of research behind them.