Peptide basics

791,282 people have been enrolled in trials of the peptides tracked here

On this page
  1. What the number counts
  2. The distribution is the story
  3. Why a class total is a bad argument
  4. Common questions

Adding up the enrolment of every verified interventional trial across the 68 compounds tracked here gives 791,282 participants.

That total is concentrated. A handful of GLP-1 compounds account for the majority of it, because their trials are large and there are many of them.

25 of the 68 compounds contribute zero, because no registered trial has ever given them to anyone.

The figure counts people enrolled in trials that administered the compound. It does not count people in observational studies, who were watched rather than treated.

This page reports how many people have been enrolled in registered trials of the compounds tracked here. Enrolment is a measure of how much has been studied, not of whether anything worked. No dose, schedule or route appears on this page.

What the number counts

Every registered study carries an enrolment figure: how many people took part. Summing that field across every trial we verified as actually administering one of the 68 tracked compounds gives 791,282.1

The word administering is doing the work. A trial where people are given a compound tells you something about what happens when people are given it. A study where researchers watch a population and record what they were already taking tells you something else entirely, and mixing the two produces a number that means nothing.4

The distribution is the story

A single trial can dominate. SELECT enrolled 17,604 adults on its own — more than most compounds on this site have accumulated across their entire registered history. STEP 1, the trial behind most semaglutide weight-loss claims, enrolled 1,961.23

At the other end, 25 of the 68 compounds contribute exactly zero, because no registered trial has ever administered them to a human being. They are not under-studied. They are unstudied, in the specific sense that the public registry holds nothing.1

Why a class total is a bad argument

Sellers of unstudied compounds sometimes borrow the credibility of studied ones by talking about peptides as a category: hundreds of thousands of people studied, decades of research, an established field. All of that can be true of the category and none of it true of the thing being sold.1

The useful figure is never the class total. It is the enrolment behind the specific compound, and for 25 of the 68 here that figure is zero however impressive the class looks.1

Common questions

Does a bigger enrolment mean better evidence?

Usually more precise, not necessarily better. A large trial in a narrow population answers a narrow question very precisely. Size and relevance are different properties.

Why exclude observational studies?

Because they describe people who chose or were prescribed something, not people who were assigned it. Counting them under a heading about what has been tested in humans overstates the evidence by a wide margin.

Is anyone counted twice?

Possibly, across separate trials of different compounds, and across extension studies of the same one. The figure is a sum of trial enrolments, not a count of distinct individuals.

Sources

  1. Regulatory
    ClinicalTrials.gov API v2 — study records and enrolment fieldsU.S. National Library of Medicine, 2026clinicaltrials.gov/data-api/apiBack to text
  2. Regulatory
    STEP 1 (NCT03548935) — enrolment 1,961, interventional, phase 3ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2021clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03548935Back to text
  3. Regulatory
    SELECT (NCT03574597) — enrolment 17,604, interventional, phase 3ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2023clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03574597Back to text
  4. Regulatory
    ClinicalTrials.gov — study type definitions (interventional vs observational)U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2026clinicaltrials.gov/study-basics/glossaryBack to text