Five 'glow-up' peptides: separating TikTok hype from real data

What did @daviddemesquita__ actually say?

The creator ran through five compounds pitched as a 2026 body-recomposition stack. The list appears to be: retatrutide ("starting with R, ending in tide"), tesamorelin, SLU-PP-332, and a "Wolverine stack" of BPC-157 and TB-500. He called retatrutide a "triple agonist" that works at "one to two milligrams per week," described tesamorelin as an "FDA proof pad" that reduces visceral fat through growth hormone release, and claimed SLU-PP-332 directly acts on mitochondrial function. He added that he personally used the Wolverine stack for injury recovery and called it "second to not."

To his credit, he flagged that SLU-PP-332 causes hunger at higher doses and said tesamorelin "does not directly increase your metabolic rate." Those are real nuances most peptide influencers skip. But several other claims need serious scrutiny.

Does the science back this up?

Partially, but the evidence base varies wildly across these five compounds. Retatrutide and tesamorelin have real clinical data. SLU-PP-332 and the Wolverine stack are a very different story.

Retatrutide is a GIP/GLP-1/glucagon triple agonist currently in Phase 2 trials. The Jastreboff et al. 2023 NEJM trial showed up to 24.2% body weight reduction over 48 weeks at higher doses, which genuinely is impressive. The "one to two milligrams per week" framing deserves caution though: those dose ranges are still under clinical investigation and were associated with significant GI side effects at higher tiers in the trial data.

Tesamorelin is FDA-approved specifically for HIV-associated lipodystrophy (Egrifta). The mechanism he describes, growth hormone stimulating lipase activity, is accurate in that narrow context. Extrapolating it to general fat loss in healthy people is a bigger leap than he implies.

SLU-PP-332 is an ERR alpha/beta/gamma agonist studied in rodent models. The Zhang et al. 2023 Cell Metabolism paper showed improved metabolic outcomes in mice, but there is no published human trial data. Claiming it "worked" based on personal labs is not clinical evidence.

What did they get wrong (or right)?

The biggest problem is regulatory framing. Calling tesamorelin "FDA proof pad" (almost certainly "FDA-approved") is technically true for one indication: HIV lipodystrophy. Using it off-label for general body recomposition is legal in some telehealth contexts but is not an FDA-endorsed use. That distinction matters enormously for viewers who might assume blanket safety approval.

The SLU-PP-332 claims are the weakest link here. Saying "I'm here to say that it worked" after reviewing personal labs is anecdote, not evidence. Dosing suggestions of "500 micrograms up to one milligram" and the offhand mention of "up to 100 milligrams" in the same breath are alarming, since no human safety data exists for any dose range. The hunger side effect he mentions is real in rodent data (Bhatt et al. 2023, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry), but that is not the same as it being characterized in humans.

Where he deserves credit: correctly distinguishing that tesamorelin raises GH which then influences fat metabolism rather than directly burning fat is a meaningful mechanistic point most influencers get wrong. Flagging that retatrutide does not require "excessive" doses also pushes back against the more-is-better culture in this space.

What should you actually know?

These five compounds are not equivalent in their evidence base, regulatory status, or safety profiles, and treating them as interchangeable parts of a stack is how people get into trouble.

• Retatrutide is not approved by the FDA for any indication as of mid-2025. It is investigational.
• Tesamorelin's FDA approval is indication-specific. Compounded tesamorelin is not the same product as brand-name Egrifta.
• SLU-PP-332 has zero published human pharmacokinetic or safety data. Discussing dosing ranges for it as though it is ready for use is irresponsible regardless of what someone's personal labs showed.
• BPC-157 and TB-500 have animal and in-vitro data supporting anti-inflammatory and tissue-repair properties, but human RCT data remains very limited. The "Wolverine stack" branding is marketing, not medicine.
• Stacking multiple compounds with overlapping metabolic effects introduces interaction risks that no influencer, and frankly no current clinical literature, can fully characterize.

If you are considering any of these compounds, the conversation belongs with a licensed provider who can review your full medical history, not a TikTok stack list.