AOD-9604
AOD-9604 scored 4.6 / 10 (⚖️ Neutral) on the BioHarmony scale as a Substance → Peptide → Other Peptide.
AOD-9604 is a human growth hormone fragment (hGH 176 to 191) marketed for fat loss, but its only controlled human weight-loss program failed to beat placebo, per the developer Metabolic Pharmaceuticals, and no positive human efficacy trial exists in the literature.
What is AOD-9604?
AOD-9604 is a lab-made fragment of human growth hormone, specifically the tail-end piece (residues 176 to 191) that carries growth hormone's fat-burning activity. It is sold grey-market for fat loss, and more recently for joint repair, and the short version is this: the fat-loss idea is real in animals but failed in people. The pitch makes sense on paper. Growth hormone helps mobilize stored fat, that activity lives in its C-terminus, so a small fragment might copy the fat loss while dropping the rest of the molecule's effects. In rodents that pans out, with oral AOD-9604 cutting body-weight gain by more than half in obese rats, per Heffernan 2000. The catch is that the one controlled human weight-loss program for this compound did not beat placebo, which is why it lands in caution rather than higher.
Here is the part the marketing skips. AOD-9604 is a failed obesity drug, not just an unproven one. Its developer, Metabolic Pharmaceuticals, ran the human trials and the pivotal weight-loss study missed its endpoint, a result disclosed through market filings rather than a journal, per Stier 2014. No positive human efficacy trial for AOD-9604 has ever been published, for fat loss or anything else. It does not bind the growth hormone receptor and does not raise IGF-1 or blood sugar the way full growth hormone does, per Ng 2000, so it is safe. It just does not appear to work for what it is sold for. That combination, low harm and low proven benefit, is the whole story.
Terminology
A few terms decide how you read this report, because the gap between a real animal mechanism and a proven human result is exactly where AOD-9604 lives. Get these straight and the score makes sense.
- hGH fragment 176 to 191: The C-terminal (tail-end) piece of human growth hormone that AOD-9604 copies. This region carries growth hormone's fat-mobilizing activity, which is the entire premise.
- Lipolysis: The breakdown of stored fat into usable fuel. This is the effect AOD-9604 produces in animals.
- IGF-1: Insulin-like growth factor 1, the downstream signal that full growth hormone drives. AOD-9604 does not appear to raise it, which is why it lacks growth hormone's blood-sugar and proliferation concerns.
- Intra-articular: Injected directly into a joint. The only joint-repair data for AOD-9604 used this route in rabbits, not the under-the-skin dosing people actually run.
- Subcutaneous: Injected under the skin into fat tissue. This is how grey-market users dose AOD-9604.
- GRAS: Generally Recognized As Safe, a food-additive designation. AOD-9604 has a separate food-additive history that does not evaluate drug safety or therapeutic effect, and does not mean FDA approved it as a drug.
- FAERS: The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. The FDA's safety review found no AOD-9604 reports in it, a point in its safety favor.
- WADA S2: The World Anti-Doping Agency category covering growth-factor and hormone-fragment compounds. AOD-9604 is banned at all times under it.
How do you take AOD-9604?
Dosing & Protocols
Dosing information is summarized from published research and community reports. This is not a prescribing guide. Consult a healthcare provider before starting any protocol.
View 3 routes and 4 protocols
Routes & Forms
| Route | Form | Clinical Range | Community Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subcutaneous injection | Lyophilized powder reconstituted with bacteriostatic water (research-chemical supply, identity and purity unverified) | No approved clinical dose | About 250 to 500 mcg per day, commonly 300 mcg |
| Oral or sublingual | Capsule, tablet, or oral spray | No approved clinical dose | Varies widely by product, not standardized |
| Intra-articular injection | Solution injected directly into a joint, sometimes with hyaluronic acid | No approved clinical dose | Not a standard self-administration route |
Protocols
Common fat-loss attempt (subcutaneous) Anecdotal
- Dose
- 300 mcg
- Frequency
- Once daily, fasted
- Duration
- Several weeks to a few months
The most-cited grey-market protocol. Remember the controlled human weight-loss program for this compound failed to beat placebo, so this is anecdote layered on a negative trial.
Lower-dose trial Anecdotal
- Dose
- 250 mcg
- Frequency
- Once daily, fasted
- Duration
- 4 to 8 weeks
A conservative starting point some users prefer. No human dose-response data supports any of these amounts.
Higher-dose attempt Anecdotal
- Dose
- 500 mcg
- Frequency
- Once daily, fasted
- Duration
- Several weeks
Higher anecdotal ceiling. There is no evidence more is better, and no successful human trial validates any dose.
Stacked repair adjunct Anecdotal
- Dose
- 300 mcg
- Frequency
- Once daily
- Duration
- Variable
Most community joint use stacks AOD-9604 with stronger repair peptides like BPC-157 or TB-500, which makes any benefit impossible to attribute to AOD-9604 itself.
How this score is calculated →
What are the benefits of AOD-9604?
Upside contribution: 0.91
| Dimension | Weight | Score | Visual | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy | 25% | 1.5 | 0.375 | |
| Breadth | 15% | 2.0 | 0.300 | |
| Evidence | 25% | 2.0 | 0.500 | |
| Speed | 10% | 2.0 | 0.200 | |
| Durability | 10% | 2.0 | 0.200 | |
| Bioindividuality | 15% | 2.2 | 0.330 | |
| Total | 1.905 |
Upside Rationale
The upside is thin, and that is the honest read. AOD-9604's one genuine asset is a real, well-characterized fat-loss mechanism in rodents, where oral dosing cut body-weight gain by more than half, per Heffernan 2000. Everything weakens from there. The strongest human-evidence point does not exist, because the one controlled human program failed and no positive human trial was ever published. Breadth is narrow, speed and durability cannot be characterized without a human outcome, and bioindividuality is undefined for the same reason. The single boundary condition that explains every dimension below: a real animal mechanism that did not translate to people leaves almost nothing for a human-facing upside to stand on.
Efficacy (1.5/5.0): Efficacy is near the floor because the human evidence failed, not merely because it is missing. The lipolytic effect is strong and consistent in rodents, with oral AOD-9604 reducing body-weight gain by more than half over 19 days in obese Zucker rats, per Heffernan 2000, and raising fat oxidation in mice, per Ng 2000. But the compound's developer ran the pivotal human weight-loss trial and it did not beat placebo, after which the obesity program was abandoned, per Stier 2014. No positive human efficacy trial for AOD-9604 exists in the literature for any use. That is materially worse than untested: it is tested for its lead claim and it did not work. A failed human trial with no offsetting positive study cannot score as effective.
Breadth of Benefits (2.0/5.0): Breadth is low because the compound was built for one job and even that job failed in people. The marketed uses are fat loss and joint repair, and both fall short. Fat loss is the failed human indication, per Stier 2014. Joint repair rests on a single rabbit study using direct knee injection, per Kwon 2015, with no human data and a route mismatch for how people dose. There is no muscle, skin, longevity, endurance, or cognition endpoint in any species, and mechanistically it does not drive the IGF-1 pathway, per Ng 2000, so the collagen-style benefits attributed to other growth-hormone peptides are not expected here. One failed claim plus one single-study claim is not breadth.
Evidence Quality (2.0/5.0): Evidence quality is low and the reason the whole report sits in caution. The animal rigor is decent, with multiple consistent rodent fat-loss studies, per Heffernan 2000, plus one rabbit cartilage study, per Kwon 2015. The problem is the human tier. The pivotal human weight-loss result is unpublished, disclosed through company market filings rather than peer review, and it was negative, per Stier 2014. Every published human-relevant mention is a review describing the program as in development, never reporting a positive outcome. Strong animal data and a failed, unpublished human trial is a weak overall base for any human claim.
Speed of Onset (2.0/5.0): Speed cannot be meaningfully characterized in humans because there is no human benefit to time. In animals the lipolytic action is acute, raising plasma glycerol and fat oxidation during dosing, per Ng 2000. But for a person, there is no validated timeline to a result, because the controlled human trial did not produce one. Any claimed onset in the community is anecdote layered on a failed trial, so the score reflects an absent human onset rather than a fast one.
Durability (2.0/5.0): Durability is low because there is no human outcome to persist. Mechanistically the action is transient, with lipolysis stimulated during exposure and no evidence of a lasting set-point change in the rodent work, per Ng 2000. No published data describes any effect outlasting dosing in people, and since the human weight-loss trial failed, there is nothing durable to measure. Treat any effect as transient and tied to nothing real in humans.
Bioindividuality Upside (2.2/5.0): Bioindividuality is undefined in a useful sense because no human responder profile exists. In rodents the effect was reasonably consistent across obese models, per Heffernan 2000, but that does not translate into human responder versus non-responder predictors when the human trial showed no benefit overall. There are no biomarker or genetic predictors of response identified for AOD-9604, and the community signal is dominated by disappointment rather than a clear subgroup that benefits, per Grogan 2026. The slightly-above-floor score reflects the clean animal consistency, not any demonstrated human variability worth targeting.
AOD-9604 is the rare peptide whose signature claim is the one that failed in humans. The fat loss is real in rats and absent in people, so the question is not whether it is dangerous, it is why you would spend on something its own developer could not get to beat a placebo. Nick Urban, summarizing the metabolism review by Stier 2014
What are the risks & downsides of AOD-9604?
Downside contribution: 1.33 (safety risks weighted extra)
| Dimension | Weight | Score | Visual | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety | 30% | 2.0 | 0.600 | |
| Side effects | 15% | 1.8 | 0.270 | |
| Cost | 5% | 2.4 | 0.120 | |
| Effort | 5% | 3.2 | 0.160 | |
| Opportunity | 5% | 3.8 | 0.190 | |
| Dependency | 15% | 2.0 | 0.300 | |
| Reversibility | 25% | 1.6 | 0.400 | |
| Total | 2.040 | |||
| Harm subtotal × 1.4 | 2.198 | |||
| Opportunity subtotal × 1.0 | 0.470 | |||
| Combined downside | 2.668 | |||
| Baseline offset (constant) | −1.340 | |||
| Effective downside penalty | 1.328 |
Downside Rationale
The downside is unusual: it is driven almost entirely by opportunity cost, not danger. AOD-9604 is genuinely well-tolerated, with no FDA adverse-event reports and no growth-hormone-style blood-sugar harm, per the FDA briefing materials and Ng 2000. So safety, side effects, dependency, and reversibility all score low. The heavy weight lands on opportunity cost, because money and effort go to a compound whose lead human trial failed while better-evidenced options exist. The daily injection burden adds friction, and grey-market contamination is the one real safety wrinkle. The dominant exposure is not your health, it is your wallet and your time.
The safety record is the strange part: the FDA found no adverse-event reports at all, so this is one of the more benign things you can inject. The catch is that benign and useless can be the same molecule, and here they are. Nick Urban, citing the FDA briefing materials
Safety Risk (2.0/5.0): Safety risk is low, which is the most favorable thing about AOD-9604. The FDA's safety review searched its adverse-event database and the published literature and found no reports and no harm cases, per the FDA briefing materials. In animals it caused no hyperglycemia, no insulin-secretion suppression, and no insulin-sensitivity harm, unlike full growth hormone, per Ng 2000 and Heffernan 2000. There is no documented intrinsic catastrophic signal at typical doses. The honest caveats are absence-of-data rather than presence-of-harm: no long-term human safety study, no FDA drug approval, and a precautionary contraindication for active cancer because any growth-hormone-derived molecule warrants caution without human cancer-safety data. The real-world hazard is contaminated supply, not the molecule itself.
Side Effect Profile (1.8/5.0): Side effects are minimal in the published record. No adverse-event reports were found in the FDA's 2024 review, per the FDA briefing materials, and the rodent studies emphasized the absence of growth hormone's metabolic downsides, per Ng 2000. The main practical complaints from grey-market injectable use are local: injection-site redness or irritation, which is as much a sterility-and-contamination flag as a drug effect. With no signal of systemic side effects in the literature, this scores near the floor, which is a genuine point in the compound's favor.
Financial Cost (2.4/5.0): Cost is moderate and ongoing. Research-chemical AOD-9604 is relatively cheap per vial, but daily subcutaneous dosing over several weeks turns into a recurring spend. The relevant framing is not the price per dose, it is that you are paying repeatedly for a compound whose human weight-loss trial failed. Spending money is the easy part; spending it on something with no positive human study is the cost that matters.
Time/Effort Burden (3.2/5.0): Effort is meaningful. Injectable AOD-9604 requires reconstitution with bacteriostatic water, daily subcutaneous injection, fasted timing, cold-chain storage, and site rotation. That is a real daily logistics load compared with an oral supplement, and it is a hard ask for a compound that did not beat placebo in its one controlled human trial. The effort is the same as for peptides that actually work, with none of the payoff.
Opportunity Cost (3.8/5.0): Opportunity cost is the dominant downside and the single heaviest dimension. Every dollar, hour, and injection spent on AOD-9604 is spent on a failed human indication, when better-evidenced options exist. For fat loss, the basics of training, protein, and sleep move the same goal with far more certainty. For repair, peptides like BPC-157, TB-500, and GHK-Cu carry deeper preclinical signals than the single rabbit cartilage study behind AOD-9604's joint claim. Choosing AOD-9604 means choosing the option whose own developer could not get it to work.
Dependency/Withdrawal (2.0/5.0): Dependency risk is low. AOD-9604 does not suppress a hormonal axis, since it does not bind the growth-hormone receptor or drive the feedback loops that exogenous growth hormone does, per Ng 2000. There is no documented tolerance, addiction, or withdrawal syndrome. Stopping simply ends the pharmacology, which clears on its own. This is a clean dimension and another reason the harm side of the profile stays low.
Reversibility (1.6/5.0): Reversibility is excellent. AOD-9604 is a small peptide that clears the body cleanly, so stopping returns you to baseline without a taper or any lasting change. There is no depot effect and no irreversible action to worry about. If you try it and it does nothing, which the human evidence suggests is likely, you can stop with no residual consequences. The low score here reflects a genuine strength, not a problem.
Is AOD-9604 worth it?
AOD-9604 lands in caution for an unusual reason: it is safe but it does not appear to work for what it is sold for. The fat-loss mechanism is real and consistent in rodents, per Heffernan 2000, but the one controlled human weight-loss program failed to beat placebo and was abandoned, per Stier 2014, and no positive human efficacy trial exists for any use. The joint claim rests on a single rabbit study using a route people do not use. It is well-tolerated, with no FDA adverse-event reports, per the FDA briefing materials, so the case against it is not danger, it is that your money and effort buy almost nothing here.
✅ Best for: Honestly, almost no one as a standalone bet, and this report will not pretend otherwise. The narrow fit is an experienced user who already runs better-evidenced repair peptides and wants a low-harm, low-expectation add-on, fully accepting it may do nothing. Someone curious about the compound who values its clean safety profile and will treat it as an experiment, not a solution, tracking waist and body composition honestly over a cycle. Anyone in that camp should source verified, contamination-free material and set expectations to match a failed human trial.
❌ Avoid if: You want evidence-backed fat loss, since the human trial for exactly that failed, per Stier 2014. You compete in tested sport, because AOD-9604 is banned at all times under WADA S2. You are pregnant or breastfeeding, with no safety data. You have active or a history of cancer, since any growth-hormone-derived molecule warrants caution without human cancer-safety data. You cannot verify your source, because the compound has been found in seized and confiscated peptide preparations, per Henninge 2014, and contamination is the one real hazard. You are choosing it over training, protein, sleep, or a better-evidenced repair peptide.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is AOD-9604 and how is it supposed to work?
AOD-9604 is the C-terminal fragment of human growth hormone, the 176 to 191 piece that carries growth hormone's fat-mobilizing activity. The idea is to copy the fat-burning effect without the rest of the molecule. In rodents it does stimulate the breakdown of stored fat, per Heffernan 2000, and it does not bind the growth-hormone receptor or drive cell proliferation, per Ng 2000, so it should not raise IGF-1 or blood sugar the way full growth hormone does.
Does AOD-9604 actually work for fat loss in people?
No. The honest answer is that the one controlled human weight-loss program for AOD-9604 failed to beat placebo and was abandoned by its developer, Metabolic Pharmaceuticals, per the metabolism review by Stier 2014. No positive human efficacy trial for AOD-9604 has ever been published for any use. The strong fat-loss data is all in rodents, per Heffernan 2000, and it did not translate to people, which is why this is a failed drug rather than an unproven one.
Why does AOD-9604 work in rats but not in humans?
The rodent fat-loss effect is real and consistent, with more than a fifty percent cut in body-weight gain in obese rats, per Heffernan 2000, backed by raised fat oxidation in mice, per Ng 2000. But strong animal data routinely fails to carry over to humans, and AOD-9604 is a clean example: when the developer ran the pivotal human weight-loss trial, the result did not separate from placebo. A recent sports-medicine review groups it with peptides that have favorable animal data but scarce human evidence, per Grogan 2026.
Is the joint and cartilage repair claim for AOD-9604 backed by evidence?
Barely. The joint claim rests on a single rabbit study, where direct knee injection of AOD-9604 reduced cartilage-degeneration scores and worked best with hyaluronic acid, per Kwon 2015. That is genuine signal, but it is one animal study using direct joint injection, not the under-the-skin dosing people actually run, and there is no human trial. A recent orthopaedics review notes the current lack of clinical trials, per Patel 2026, so the joint use is far less supported than even the failed fat-loss claim.
Is AOD-9604 safe to use?
It looks genuinely safe in the short term, which is the one favorable part of its profile. The FDA's safety review found no adverse-event reports and no published harm cases for AOD-9604, per the FDA briefing materials, and animal studies showed no growth-hormone-style blood-sugar harm, per Ng 2000. The real risks are the unknowns: no long-term human data and contaminated grey-market product, which has shown up in seized vials, per Henninge 2014.
How do people dose AOD-9604, and is there a real protocol?
There is no approved or evidence-validated human dose. The common grey-market protocol is about 300 mcg per day subcutaneous, usually fasted, cycled for several weeks, but none of these numbers come from a successful trial. Rodent fat-loss work used oral dosing, per Heffernan 2000, yet the oral human program is the one that failed, so oral claims are weak. There is no validated dose-response, no defined window, and no human monitoring protocol for any route.
Where does AOD-9604 come from and is contamination a real risk?
AOD-9604 is sold mainly as a research chemical, not an approved drug. It was recently removed from the interim 503A compounding list and reviewed by an FDA advisory committee, per the FDA briefing materials, so it is not a lawful compounding bulk substance. A separate food-additive history is often miscited as if it were approval, but it validates no therapeutic claim. Contamination is a documented risk: AOD-9604 has turned up in confiscated and seized peptide preparations, per Stier 2014 and Henninge 2014.
Who, if anyone, is AOD-9604 actually for?
Almost no one as a standalone bet, because the lead human trial failed and no positive human study exists. Tested athletes must avoid it outright, since it is banned at all times under WADA S2, per Stier 2014. The closest fit is an experienced user who already runs better-evidenced repair peptides and wants a low-harm add-on, accepting it may do nothing. For real repair signal, peptides like BPC-157 and TB-500 have deeper preclinical support.
What could change AOD-9604's score?
BioHarmony scores are living assessments. New research, regulatory changes, or personal context can shift the score up or down. These are the most likely scenarios that would change this intervention's rating.
The fastest way up is the thing that has never happened: a positive human efficacy trial. Because the current score is dragged down by a failed and absent human record rather than by danger, even a single credible human result would move it more than usual, and a confirmed safety problem would move it down. Efficacy and evidence would shift first in either direction, since they carry the failure.
| Scenario | Dimension shifts | New Score |
|---|---|---|
| A controlled human trial shows real fat loss versus placebo | Efficacy 1.5 to 3.0, Evidence 2.0 to 3.0 | 5.3 / 10 ⚖️ Neutral |
| A human joint or cartilage trial confirms the rabbit signal | Efficacy 1.5 to 2.5, Breadth 2.0 to 2.8 | 5.0 / 10 ⚖️ Neutral |
| Independent human pharmacology validates a defined effect | Evidence 2.0 to 2.8, Speed 2.0 to 2.6 | 4.8 / 10 ⚖️ Neutral |
| A long-term safety signal or contamination harm emerges | Safety 2.0 to 3.5, Side Effects 1.8 to 3.0 | 3.8 / 10 ⚠️ Caution |
| Repeated testing keeps finding mislabeled or contaminated product | Safety 2.0 to 2.8, Cost 2.4 to 3.0 | 4.3 / 10 ⚠️ Caution |
| A new review reaffirms the failed human program with no new data | Evidence 2.0 to 1.8, Efficacy 1.5 to 1.4 | 4.5 / 10 ⚖️ Neutral |
Key Evidence Sources
- Heffernan 2000, Endocrinology: oral AOD9604 cut body-weight gain by more than half over 19 days in obese Zucker rats while raising adipose lipolysis, with no harm to insulin sensitivity.. Primary rodent fat-loss study (oral dosing, 2000); strongest animal efficacy anchor
- Ng 2000, Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism: AOD9604 reduced body-weight gain and raised fat oxidation in mice, did not bind the growth-hormone receptor, did not induce cell proliferation, and caused no hyperglycemia.. Mechanistic rodent study (2000): receptor-independent lipolysis and clean metabolic profile
- Heffernan 2001, Journal of Endocrinology: AOD9604's lipolytic action is not mediated directly through the beta-3 adrenergic receptor, though it raises beta-3 receptor expression in obese mice.. Mechanistic rodent study (2001): falsifies the beta-3 agonist shorthand
- Kwon 2015, Journal of Veterinary Science: intra-articular AOD9604 with hyaluronic acid reduced cartilage degeneration and lameness in a rabbit collagenase osteoarthritis model.. Single rabbit cartilage study (2015): the entire basis for the joint-repair claim
- Stier 2014, Drug Testing and Analysis: defines AOD9604 as a growth hormone fragment marketed to mimic lipolysis without diabetogenic effects, sold on the internet, banned by WADA, and detected in confiscated vials.. Analytical and regulatory review (2014): WADA ban, internet sale, confiscated-vial contamination, failed obesity program context
- Henninge 2014, Drug Testing and Analysis: AOD9604 identified in unknown peptide preparations seized by Belgian authorities, documenting the grey-market contamination reality.. Forensic study (2014): seized grey-market preparations, contamination and identity risk
- Grogan 2026, Sports Medicine: groups AOD-9604 with unapproved grey-market peptides that have favorable animal data, scarce human safety data, and a social-media-amplified placebo caveat.. Narrative review (2026): animal-favorable, human-scarce framing and placebo caveat
- Patel 2026, Orthopaedics review: lists AOD-9604 as a growth-hormone-secretagogue-class adjunct with a current lack of clinical trials.. Narrative orthopaedics review (2026): documents the absence of joint clinical trials
- FDA 2024 briefing materials for the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee: searched FAERS and the literature through January 2024 and found no adverse-event reports for AOD-9604; the substance was reviewed for the 503A bulks list.. FDA primary safety and compounding-review document (2024): no FAERS signal, regulatory posture
What does the evidence say about AOD-9604?
Evidence on this intervention is summarized across three complementary streams: contemporary clinical research, pre-RCT-era pharmacology and observational use, and the traditional medical systems that documented it first. Convergence across streams signals higher confidence; divergence is surfaced honestly.
Modern Clinical Research
Confidence: Low
Citations: Heffernan 2000, Ng 2000, Kwon 2015, Stier 2014
Holistic Evidence for AOD-9604
AOD-9604 is a modern synthetic human growth hormone fragment with no traditional or historical-medicine lineage, so only the modern-science lens applies. That lens converges on one verdict: genuine rodent lipolysis, a failed human weight-loss trial, and no positive human efficacy study.
What to Track If You Try This
These are the data points that matter most while running a 30-day Experiment with this intervention.
How to read this section
- Pre
- Test or score before starting the protocol. Anchors a baseline.
- During
- Track while running the protocol so you can see if anything is changing.
- Post
- Re-test after a full cycle to confirm the change held.
- Up
- The marker should rise. For most positive outcomes, that is a good sign.
- Down
- The marker should fall. For most positive outcomes, that is a good sign.
- Stable
- The marker should hold steady. Big swings in either direction are a yellow flag.
- Watch
- Direction depends on dose, timing, and your baseline. Pay close attention to the trend.
- N/A
- No expected direction. The entry is there to anchor a baseline reading.
- Primary
- The Pulse dimension most likely to shift. Track this first.
- Secondary
- Also relevant, but a smaller or less consistent shift. Track if Primary is unclear.
Bloodwork to Order
Open These Markers In Your Dashboard
- Fasting Glucose During | Expected Watch
- HbA1c During | Expected Watch
Pulse Dimensions to Watch
- Body During | Expected Watch | Primary
- Energy During | Expected Watch | Secondary
Subjective Signals (Daily Voice Card)
- Waist measurement and how clothes fit over the cycle Scale 1-5 | During | Expected Watch
- Injection-site redness, swelling, or warmth (a contamination or sterility flag, not a drug effect) Scale 1-5 | During | Expected Watch
Red Flags: Stop and Consult
- Injection-site infection signs (spreading redness, pus, fever): stop and seek care, since the main real risk is contaminated grey-market product.
- Any active or suspected cancer: do not use; any growth-hormone-derived molecule warrants caution without human cancer-safety data.
- Pregnancy or breastfeeding: do not use; there is no safety data.
Other interventions for Body Composition
See all ratings →📊 How BioHarmony scoring works
BioHarmony translates a weighted expected-value calculation into a reader-facing 0–10 score. Tier bands: Skip 0–3.6, Caution 3.7–4.7, Neutral 4.8–5.7, Worth Trying 5.8–6.9, Strong Recommend 7.0–7.9, Top-tier 8.0+.
Harm-type downsides (safety risk, side effects, reversibility, dependency) carry a 1.4× precautionary multiplier. Harm weighs more than benefit. Opportunity-type downsides (financial cost, time/effort, opportunity cost) are subtracted at face value.
Use case subratings are independent assessments of how well the intervention addresses specific health goals. They are not components of the overall score. Each subrating reflects the scorer's judgment based on use-case-specific evidence, safety, and effect sizes.
Every dimension is evaluated on a 1–5 scale, and the baseline (1) is subtracted before weighting. A perfect intervention with zero downsides contributes zero penalty rather than a residual floor, so top-tier scores are actually reachable.
EV = Upside − Downside
EV = 0.905 − 1.328 = -0.423
Formula v0.5 maps EV = 0 to score 5.0. Above neutral, 1 EV point equals 1 score point. Below neutral, 1 EV point equals about 0.71 score points, so EV = −7 reaches 0.0 while EV = +5 reaches 10.0. Both sides use the full 5-point half-scale.
Score = 5 + (-0.423 / 7) × 5 = 4.7 / 10
