A conversation with Anant Vinjamoori, MD on physician oversight, cycling protocols, and why your Instagram guru’s stack might be terrible for you
Key Takeaways
On Safety: Research chemical companies are accessible, but physician supervision matters. Most peptides require strategic cycling to maintain efficacy and avoid receptor desensitization.
On Evidence: Peptides exist on a spectrum from FDA-approved (GLP-1s) to “lots of clinical experience but zero published human studies” (BPC-157). Know which category you’re playing in.
On Cancer Risk: The growth hormone concern is theoretical. Cell culture models show acceleration, but clinical experience hasn’t confirmed the fear. Still unresolved.
On What Works: BPC-157 works (it’s on the banned substance list for a reason). Oral form for gut health, injectable for injury recovery. Anecdotal evidence strong, peer-reviewed studies weak.
On 2026: Regulatory clarity is coming. The longevity space will mature, painfully. Some inflated promises will collapse. Traditional medicine needs to join the conversation.
The Spectrum of Certainty
Julia: You’re advising companies from Superpower to Modern Age, you’ve seen every peptide protocol imaginable. Give us the unvarnished take: peptides—good or bad?
Dr. Vinjamoori: Neither. It’s context-dependent. Peptides are the first pharmaceutical-grade tools patients can access without doctors. That’s either liberating or dangerous depending on how you use them.
I love patient autonomy. But most people would benefit from clinical support before injecting compounds they found on Reddit. You need the basics dialed in first” sleep, nutrition, movement. Peptides aren’t magic. They’re amplifiers.
Julia: So what do you think of these research chemical companies selling peptides direct-to-consumer?
Dr. Vinjamoori: I don’t recommend them to my patients. I source from reputable compounding pharmacies under physician supervision.
That said, plenty of people buy from research chemical companies and do fine. Individual choice. But for me and the people I treat, I prefer oversight.
Julia: Let’s talk evidence hierarchy. Not all peptides are created equal.
Dr. Vinjamoori: Exactly. Think of it as a spectrum of certainty.
Tier 1: FDA-approved drugs. GLP-1s, certain growth hormone peptides like ipamorelin, tesamorelin. We have data. These are real drugs being used off-label by telehealth companies.
Tier 2: Approved in other countries, not the US. Thymosin Alpha-1 (immune balancing, used for viral hepatitis in Asia), Cerebrolysin (neurocognitive disorders, popular in Eastern Europe). Solid data exists, just not FDA-level.
Tier 3: Everything else. Not approved anywhere. Animal studies at best. But a decade of clinical experience accumulated by practitioners seeing real benefits. Most peptide users today operate on this accumulated wisdom, not published research.
Julia: BPC-157 falls into Tier 3. It’s everywhere in the performance space. Oral versions, injectable versions. Does it actually work or is it placebo?
Dr. Vinjamoori: It works. Wouldn’t be on the World Anti-Doping Agency banned list if it didn’t.
We don’t have peer-reviewed human studies. We have ten-plus years of clinical experience. It’s effective for recovery: both from intense training and acute injury.
Critical distinction: Injectable BPC for muscle tissue recovery and injury. Oral BPC for gut health - it acts locally on the gut lining.
Julia: The form factor question is huge. Sprays, pills, injections—do they all work or is this just marketing?
Dr. Vinjamoori: You’re stacking layers of uncertainty. We already don’t have published data on most peptides. That’s layer one. Most clinical experience is with injectables. That’s layer two.
Once you move to nasal sprays or other delivery methods, you’re adding layer three. We just don’t have experience with BPC nasal spray or other formulations.
Exception: Oral BPC-157 for gut health. We know that works.
The Cancer Question
“In cell culture, if you give growth hormone to cells growing out of control, they grow faster. Clinically? We haven’t seen it play out.”
Julia: Growth hormone peptides and cancer risk. What’s the real story?
Dr. Vinjamoori: Theoretically, yes. In cell culture models, absolutely - growth hormone accelerates out-of-control cells.
Clinically? Practitioners using these peptides for a decade haven’t seen direct causation. Attribution is hard.
Here’s what’s interesting: These are being studied for cancer patients. Clinical trials using growth hormone peptides to augment appetite and muscle retention in people with cancer. IRBs approved that.
Cancer is multifaceted. You can argue both sides. Growth hormone peptides augment mitochondrial function. Cancer cells have dysfunctional mitochondria. If we correct that, maybe it helps. We don’t know yet.
Julia: So physician oversight isn’t just about biomarkers. It’s about risk tolerance.
Dr. Vinjamoori: Exactly. My job isn’t just ordering labs. It’s understanding what risks someone is comfortable taking. What matters to them. What their values are.
I spend my first visit understanding the patient as a person. Once I know their risk tolerance, navigating uncertainty becomes possible. Everything in medicine is uncertain: FDA-approved drugs, diets, supplements. Everything.
Cycling, Receptors, and Why You Can’t Take Peptides Forever
Julia: You posted something recently about bio-regulators and why cycling peptides matters. Break down the science.
Dr. Vinjamoori: Peptides work by binding to receptors on cell surfaces. Think keyhole and key. You open the lock, trigger beneficial cellular responses.
Problem: Keep opening that lock repeatedly, the receptor becomes desensitized. Eventually stops working.
Worse: It’s not just the injected peptide using those receptors—your natural peptides use them too. Now you’ve broken native function.
That’s why cycling matters.
Bio-regulators are different. They work at the epigenetic level, not through cell surface receptors. Less desensitization concern.
Julia: Is there a hard limit on peptide duration before efficacy drops?
Dr. Vinjamoori: Individual-dependent. That’s why you need a physician. The breakpoint is different for everyone.
This applies to everything—diets, exercise protocols. Bodies benefit from continuous adaptation. That adaptation response makes us stronger.
What Dr. Vinjamoori Actually Takes (And Why It Doesn’t Matter)
Julia: What peptides have you tried on yourself?
Dr. Vinjamoori: What I do for myself isn’t what I’d recommend for patients. Influencers hesitate to share protocols because people hear it and immediately copy it.
I’ve tried many peptides. I don’t take anything continuously. I believe in cycling. I believe in continuous adaptation. I believe in measuring.
Right now? Vitamin D and omega-3. That’s it.
Julia: That’s incredibly basic for a longevity physician.
Dr. Vinjamoori: I’ve taken GLP-1s on and off. Experiencing what patients experience matters. I had bad brain fog initially—it cleared, it got better. But having that lived experience is important.
The human experience part of medicine is completely missing. We’ve reduced it to cookbook protocols—evidence shows this, doesn’t show that. Institutions specify what works.
I respect that. But we also have to respect lived experience. Most practitioners in this field experiment on themselves for that reason.
Julia: The lived experience has to become evidence. We’ll never have enough studies to match the pace consumers are moving.
Dr. Vinjamoori: Exactly.
2026 Predictions: Regulatory Clarity and Industry Maturation
Julia: Two questions. First, what are you most excited about in 2026 for peptides specifically?
Dr. Vinjamoori: Regulatory clarity. I’ve heard through the grapevine it’s coming. That would unlock a clearer framework for clinicians to use these compounds safely and effectively.
Julia: Broader prediction for longevity and health optimization in 2026?
Dr. Vinjamoori: Maturity phase. It’s going to be painful.
The last two years have been hype, growth, excitement, pop culture integration. We have businesses with billions in capital, tens of billions in cumulative valuations. Expectations are sky-high.
We’re hitting a plateau. Some things won’t work out. We over-inflated certain promises. That’s fine—we’ll come out with better systems.
We also need to talk about this in ways that feel credible and approachable to normal people. Right now it still reads as biohacker bro culture. We’re changing minds, but there’s more work to do.
Most importantly: We need to engage physicians practicing traditional medicine. Right now, longevity physicians and functional medicine practitioners are in an echo chamber. Everyone else is looking at this feeling excluded.
We need those conversations. I did a grand rounds at my old residency program—it was hard. I got criticism. But those are the conversations we need for this space to mature.
Julia: The consumer is currently the only glue between what their doctor says and what TikTok says. That’s not sustainable.
Dr. Vinjamoori: Exactly. And that has to change.
Final Thoughts
Peptides aren’t good or bad. They’re powerful tools that require context, supervision, and honest risk assessment. The era of “inject and pray” is ending. The era of integration with traditional medicine is beginning.
2026 will separate the signal from the noise. Some companies will fail. Some promises will deflate. That’s healthy.
What remains will be stronger, more credible, and more accessible to the people who actually need it - not just the biohackers, but everyone navigating the uncertainty of optimizing human health.
Dr. Anant Vinjamoori is a longevity physician and advisor to companies including Superpower and Modern Age. He believes in physician-supervised peptide use, continuous adaptation protocols, and bringing traditional medicine into the longevity conversation.bringing traditional medicine into the longevity conversation.
Curious to learn more? Say hi and leave a comment (subscribe below)
