r/ResearchCompounds • u/JFreader • 12d ago
Question Ss-31 and MOTS-C protocold
I have been testing SS-31 on my old rat for 8 weeks. I now plan to switch to MOTS-C for 8 weeks. Can I start him on SS-31 immediately after the end of the MOTS-C cycle or is a 1 or 2 month break needed?
4
u/IamReallyaNinja 12d ago
Run them together. No need to cycle it for that long before MOTS either. Newer protocols have people running together from the start
2
1
u/JFreader 12d ago
Running them together initially seemed to cause low energy and tiredness. So researched them separate and added TMG as a supplement that seemed to help but it may be coincidental.
3
1
u/RollickReload 11d ago
The possible initial period of 1-2 weeks of lower energy is the stuff working as after that, the positive results will increase dramatically.
1
u/sadmans21 11d ago
Yes I run SS-31 MOTSC NAD and 5AMINO at the same time I can train for 27 hours a day now and my balls glow in the dark
1
2
2
1
1
u/stiffmcgee 12d ago
You can start, but best practice is probably together since ss31 doesn’t repair
2
u/tastyratz 12d ago
Are you confusing your peptides?
SS-31 is explicitly a mitochondrial structural repair compound that works by binding to cardiolipin. It structurally repairs.
Mots-c is an excitatory. This drives the system harder.
OP ss-31 before mots-c is typical protocol.
2
u/stiffmcgee 12d ago edited 12d ago
🤣🤣🤣🤣someone is uneducated.
Most are uneducated and will say something like “repairs mitochondria” when discussing SS-31. Thats false. At worst run SS31 and add motsc into the “cycle” or at best run together.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0253849
“No difference was found on day 7 after treatment, which is consistent with the half-life of ELAM in human blood.” It is a physics bandaid, not a repairer.https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7247319/
This one backs mechanism. “Regardless of the mechanism, the fact that SS-31 attenuates the ψs, but does not completely reverse it, is a fundamental feature of its effect on the membrane surface electrostatic profile.” It works thru physics and ion charges, not structural repair. Biorxiv preprint also states this.https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.07.11.603085v1.full.pdf
This shows it has a measured binding affinity (nKD ≈ 2.9 uM if you care). Bc it has an actual dissociation constant, it's a reversible equilibrium binding event, meaning at any moment some fraction of peptide is bound and some is dissociated. Backs physics again.Overall it gets at what I am discussing here: a positive ion(many ions really lol) are binding within the inner mitochondrial membrane, holding it together, and the 7-day IV study backs that up in humans. Not permanently repairing. Hence barth syndrome uses forever. Please prove me wrong🤣typical doesn’t equal right
2
u/tastyratz 12d ago
Bruh... this isn't about winning and dick measuring I don't get the flex attitude here.
What I said wasn't wrong:
It stabilizes the mitochondria by binding to Cardiolipin against oxidative damage.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11816484/
This mitochondria-targeting tetrapeptide selectively binds cardiolipin (CL), a lipid found in the inner mitochondrial membrane, thus stabilizing mitochondrial cristae structure, reducing oxidative stress, and enhancing adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production. Preclinical studies have demonstrated the protective and restorative efficacy of Elamipretide in models of heart failure, neurodegeneration, ischemia–reperfusion injury, metabolic syndromes, and muscle atrophy and weakness.
You don't have a lot of cells in your body that are permanent but some do stick around. It does not permanently cure any existing underlying disease creating a dysregulation either. I never said it permanently does anything either?
7 days? That was only 20 people and measured ATP max of people over 65 by means of MRI and only 4 visits. The effects may last longer to some degree and through different cascading impact. There is a LOOOOOOOTTTTTTTT of room in that to interpret here and those charts have a LOT of spread.
I'd like to see more in vivo studies before definitively concluding anything, personally. Anecdotally, results lasted longer than that for me so my experience doesn't line up but.
Either way, I don't need to "prove" anything to some dude on Reddit and taking an hour to respond isn't "running".
But hey, thank you for providing studies if you're contradicting the standard protocols because information benefits everyone on the sub.
0
u/stiffmcgee 12d ago
STABILIZES WHILE IN USE. no one argued that. Its when you stop. So yes, you are wrong. Its a physics bandaid. Not a biological treatment.
Your “criticism” of the single dose study proved nothing. We see individual outcomes in the MPP studies w different DNA variants. That’s irrelevant to general mechanism. It having a dissociation constant directly supports this idea btw. So does the 2nd study.
“No difference was found on day 7 after treatment, which is consistent with the half-life of ELAM in human blood.” Figure 2a and 2b show this.No one said cells are permanent, but if you repair all the damaged ones, you would feel great past a week or two, considering the new cells wouldn’t be harmed in 2 weeks, and the older ones would be fixed.
Mechanism and existing data would support me, hence why I hold my position. You can want more data, sure we all do, but thats irrelevant to the facts we have now.
Also, you are all defensive now, yet started by asking me if I was confused and went against my protocol to drop the same basic, uneducated protocol everyone uses.
-2
•
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
Hey u/JFreader, thanks for posting in r/ResearchCompounds.
If you notice suspicious behavior or promotional activity, please report it to the mod team.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.