Ground Truth
All peptides

AOD-9604

AOD9604, Tyr-hGH(177-191), hGH fragment 176-191 analog, "anti-obesity drug 9604, " Lipotropin fragment (marketing)

Checked Oct 28, 2026

The short answer

A

Proven in humans for fat loss in obese adults

Grade A, did not work: six human randomized trials exist, and the two that tested weight loss in obese adults, including the 502-person pivotal trial, did not show a clear benefit over placebo.

Approved?
Not approved for any use.
Safety: B, characterized
Six sponsor-run trials found tolerability like placebo and no IGF-1 rise, but cancers were reported in the 12-week trial (judged unrelated by the investigators) and nothing beyond 24 weeks is known.
The full answer: what it is for, the dose, the units

What people take it for: People take AOD-9604 to lose body fat, and more recently for joint support. It is a fragment of human growth hormone built to burn fat without raising IGF-1.

A

Does it work for fat loss in obese adults? A, proven in humans. Result: did not work.

Grade A, did not work: six human randomized trials exist, and the two that tested weight loss in obese adults, including the 502-person pivotal trial, did not show a clear benefit over placebo. A grade A here means the testing is thorough, not that the drug works.

No approval for any use.

Safety: B, characterized. Six sponsor-run trials found tolerability like placebo and no IGF-1 rise, but cancers were reported in the 12-week trial (judged unrelated by the investigators) and nothing beyond 24 weeks is known.

Do not use if: No formal contraindication labeling exists because it is not an approved drug.

Could it be placebo? The pivotal trial could not separate AOD-9604 from placebo on weight loss, so any fat loss a person notices on it is not shown to come from the drug.

The dose people use, and the units to draw

No verified injectable dose exists. Trials gave oral tablets or capsules from 0.25 mg to 30 mg a day and single IV doses of 25 to 100 mcg/kg, and FDA found no human data on subcutaneous use.

SourceDoseHow often and howWho it was forLink
FDA PCAC briefing document, AOD-9604, Nov 5 2024No dose statement for subcutaneous or transdermal useNot applicableFDA reports it found no information on AOD-9604 products given by the subcutaneous or transdermal routes in humansConclusion section of the AOD-9604 evaluation
Stier et al. 2013, trial METAOD006 (Phase IIb, sponsor-run)0.25, 0.5 or 1 mg once dailyOral tablets, daily for 24 weeks after a 4-week run-in534 enrolled, 502 randomized obese adults (BMI 30 to 45); did not beat placebo on weight loss at 12 weeks per the sponsor's 2007 filingTrial table, row METAOD006; FDA briefing p. 21
Stier et al. 2013, trial METAOD005 (Phase IIb)1, 5, 10, 20 or 30 mg once dailyOral capsules, daily for 12 weeks after a 2-week run-in300 obese men and women (BMI 35 or more), about 50 per groupTrial table, row METAOD005; FDA briefing pp. 20-21
Stier et al. 2013, trial METAOD004 (Phase IIa)9, 27 or 54 mg once dailyOral capsules, daily for 7 days plus 7-day follow-up36 obese men (BMI 30 or more), 9 per groupTrial table, row METAOD004
Stier et al. 2013, trial METAOD002 (Phase IIa)25, 50 or 100 mcg/kgSingle 20-minute IV infusions, 7-day washout, Latin square design23 obese men (BMI 35 or more)Trial table, row METAOD002

Tested oral doses ran from 0.25 mg a day (24 weeks, Stier 2013 METAOD006) to 54 mg a day (7 days, METAOD004); no trial tested subcutaneous dosing.

Dose ranges printed on this site before had no named non-seller source and are removed. Examine, Attia, Huberman Lab and Dr. Abud Bakri were searched on 2026-10-28 and no dose statement for AOD-9604 was found. Stier 2013 is sponsor-affiliated and reports no efficacy numbers for the two Phase IIb trials.

Reported by the named source, never prescribed by us.

How many units do I draw?

To turn a dose into syringe units, divide the dose in mg by the vial mg, multiply by the water in mL, then multiply by 100; the calculator does this for you. Open the dose calculator

Why it might work

Assumed mechanism: AOD-9604 mimics the lipolytic C-terminal region of human growth hormone, stimulating fat breakdown (lipolysis) and inhibiting fat formation (lipogenesis) in adipocytes, proposed to act partly through beta-3 adrenergic signaling (cAMP -> protein kinase A -> hormone-sensitive lipase) rather than the GH receptor, which is why it does not raise IGF-1 or impair glucose in trials. This is well supported in rodent fat tissue; whether it produces clinically meaningful lipolysis in humans is exactly what the failed pivotal trial casts doubt on. Not an approved drug, so the mechanism remains "assumed/theoretical" in terms of real-world fat-loss benefit.

The trials, claim by claim

Result tags show how each trial came out. The letter counts every randomized trial, including ones that failed, because it measures how far testing got.

B

A 12-week Phase 2b study (300 obese adults, about 50 per arm, oral 1, 5, 10, 20 or 30 mg daily) reported in a conference abstract that weight loss was greater than placebo at every dose, with the largest effect at 1 mg and significant only in women.

Result: mixed

One human RCT, known only from a 2005 conference abstract (Herd et al.) as summarized in FDA's December 2024 briefing document, which notes the differences from placebo were small and that no full publication was found. Not independently replicated and contradicted by the larger pivotal trial.

PubMed: AOD9604 human metabolic studies
B

The larger pivotal Phase 2b weight-loss trial (multiple doses, several hundred obese adults) FAILED to beat placebo on its primary endpoint, and the drug-development program was terminated in 2007.

Result: did not work

Reported in the sponsor's February 21, 2007 filing to the Australian Stock Exchange (the OPTIONS study: 502 randomized adults, oral 0.25, 0.5 or 1 mg daily for 24 weeks, primary endpoint weight loss at 12 weeks), as summarized in FDA's December 2024 briefing document. Not published in a journal and no ClinicalTrials.gov entry (checked 2026-10-12). The negative result is the single most important efficacy fact and outweighs the small positive study.

A

Across ~900 obese adults in six RCTs, AOD-9604 showed a safety/tolerability profile indistinguishable from placebo, with no IGF-1 elevation and no adverse effect on glucose metabolism.

Result: worked

Pooled human safety analysis (Stier et al., 2013). Strong safety signal, but it was a safety paper, not an efficacy paper.

Stier et al., J Endocrinol Metab 2013 (doi 10.4021/jem157w)
D

Lipolytic/anti-lipogenic activity is established in rodent fat tissue and obese-mouse models, including via beta-3 adrenergic pathways.

Result: not tested in humans

Multiple animal and in-vitro studies (obese mice, beta-3-AR knockout mice). Robust preclinically but does not raise the human evidence grade.

PubMed: AOD9604 lipolysis mouse beta3
D

Intra-articular AOD-9604 (with or without hyaluronic acid) improved outcomes in a rabbit osteoarthritis model, the basis for the newer 'joint support' marketing.

Result: not tested in humans

Single animal (rabbit) study; no human joint/cartilage trials exist. The popular joint-health positioning is animal-only.

PubMed: AOD9604 with hyaluronic acid in rabbit osteoarthritis (Kwon, Ann Clin Lab Sci 2015)
Status

FDA's compounding advisory committee voted 12 to 0 on Dec 4, 2024 against putting AOD-9604 on the 503A bulks list, as FDA staff proposed. It is not on the list, so it cannot lawfully be compounded.

FDA Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee final summary minutes (Dec 4, 2024). Regulatory fact, not an efficacy claim.

FDA PCAC final summary minutes, December 4, 2024
Risks and the label warnings

Adverse events

In the ~900-subject human safety dataset, treatment-related adverse events were mild and indistinguishable from placebo, most commonly mild headache and gastrointestinal symptoms. No serious adverse events were attributed to the drug; the handful of SAEs recorded (mostly skin cancers in an older obese cohort) were judged unrelated to treatment. No treatment-related withdrawals. This is an unusually clean human AE profile for this class.

Contraindications

No formal contraindication labeling exists because it is not an approved drug. Prudent avoidance applies in pregnancy/breastfeeding and in active or recent cancer (it is a GH-derived fragment, even if it does not raise IGF-1, and the trial population's skin-cancer cases warrant caution in those with malignancy history). Athletes subject to drug testing must avoid it entirely, it is WADA-prohibited (S2) and detectable. As of October 2026 it is not on the 503A bulks list and cannot lawfully be compounded.

Theoretical concerns

Designed specifically to avoid GH's downsides: across human trials it did NOT raise IGF-1 and did NOT impair glucose tolerance, which is the central safety claim and appears to hold. The main theoretical concerns for a peptide fragment like this are immunogenicity (antibody formation against a peptide fragment) and impurities from synthesis, concerns that apply especially to unregulated gray-market and compounded product of unknown purity rather than to the pharmaceutical-grade material used in trials.

What nobody knows yet

No human data beyond ~24 weeks, so long-term safety is genuinely unknown. Real-world gray-market product purity, dose accuracy, and immunogenicity are unverified. The injectable subcutaneous route favored by the community was not the primary route in the efficacy trials (which heavily used oral and IV), so the popular protocol is partly extrapolated. And the central efficacy question, does it produce meaningful fat loss in humans at all, is effectively answered "not reliably" by the failed pivotal trial.

What else could explain the result

Almost always run alongside a calorie deficit, increased training, and frequently other compounds (tirzepatide/semaglutide GLP-1 agonists, tesamorelin or CJC-1295/ipamorelin GH secretagogues, MOTS-c, stimulant fat-burners). Any fat loss is extremely hard to attribute to AOD-9604 specifically, especially given the small effect size seen even in the positive trial, and the pivotal trial's failure suggests most attributed results are diet, training, or co-administered drugs.

Is the vial what it says?

Cross-checked against PubMed (animal/in-vitro studies dominate; the key human paper is the 2013 pooled safety analysis), the published 12-week Phase 2 positive result, sponsor/press reporting of the failed pivotal Phase 2b and 2007 program termination, and the FDA PCAC December 2024 minutes recording the 12 to 0 vote against listing it for 503A compounding. Forum/vendor sources were read for sentiment only and discounted. The widely repeated "FDA GRAS status" is a sponsor self-affirmed GRAS determination for supplement use, NOT an FDA drug approval, these are routinely conflated by vendors and that distinction is load-bearing.

Half-life and storage

Half-life: Short. Plasma half-life is on the order of minutes after IV dosing (~3 minutes reported in pigs); functional/effective half-life is often cited around 30 minutes. Practically it clears the body quickly and limits accumulation.

Once mixed: Supplied as lyophilized powder; reconstitute with bacteriostatic (or sterile) water. Store lyophilized vials frozen (~ -20 C) or refrigerated; after reconstitution keep refrigerated at 2-8 C and use within roughly 28 days. Avoid repeated freeze-thaw cycles, heat, and vigorous shaking (swirl gently), and protect from light, peptides degrade with rough handling.

What I noticed, and what people report

What people report

Volume of reports: faint. Little real-world record, or mostly noise.

Moderate chatter volume. AOD-9604 is a well-known "name" peptide in fat-loss circles and is widely sold, so it is discussed often. But that volume is dominated by vendor blogs, clinic marketing, and affiliate content rather than detailed independent user logs; genuine, specific first-person result reports are comparatively sparse.

Reports skew consistently underwhelming: users commonly describe subtle, slow effects at best, often indistinguishable from their diet and training, and frequently conclude it is the most "skippable" peptide in a stack. Few claim dramatic standalone fat loss. This low-key consensus actually aligns with the trial record (small effect, failed pivotal endpoint), which lends it some credibility even though it is anecdote.

Low-to-moderate. The loudest positive sources are vendors and clinics with a financial interest and are discounted. The more credible independent voices (experienced peptide users) tend to be lukewarm. Because almost everyone runs it inside a diet plus other compounds, even sincere positive reports have poor attribution. Net: the believable signal is faint.

  • Common sentiment (anecdote, not proof): most users describe the fat-loss effect as subtle and slow at best, and many say it did little or nothing they could distinguish from their diet and training alone.
  • It is frequently called the 'optional' or first-to-cut peptide in a stack, people running it with GLP-1 drugs or GH secretagogues often credit those instead.
  • Tolerability reports are genuinely good: users rarely report meaningful side effects, with occasional mild injection-site reactions, mild headache, or transient flushing.
  • A subset of users report feeling 'a bit leaner' or recovering faster from joint aches, but these are soft, subjective impressions consistent with placebo and concurrent dieting.

Reports are anecdote, not proof.

Can you tell if it is working?

Partly trackable

Body composition (DEXA fat mass) is the only honest objective readout, and expect it flat, since the pivotal 24-week human RCT (536 subjects) showed no benefit versus placebo.

Bloodwork

No blood proxy

Nothing on a routine panel confirms this one. Anyone who says otherwise is guessing.

AOD-9604 is the hGH C-terminal fragment (176-191), engineered to stimulate adipocyte lipolysis while deliberately stripping off the somatotropic/IGF-1 arm; human trials confirmed no rise in IGF-1 and no change in glucose or insulin at any dose, so no routine analyte moves when it acts and the only objective readout is body composition. Note: the exact lipolytic mechanism is unsettled, the animal work often cited for a beta-3 adrenergic pathway actually found the effect is NOT directly beta-3 mediated, but this uncertainty does not change the bloodwork conclusion, since none of the proposed pathways produce a routine analyte shift.

Read this before you spend on labs

Routine bloodwork cannot confirm AOD-9604 is working, and that is by design, not a data gap. The molecule was built to separate GH's fat-mobilizing action from its growth/metabolic arm, and human trials verified no change in IGF-1, fasting insulin, or glucose tolerance at any tested dose. Unlike GH secretagogues, a flat IGF-1 is the expected result, not a sign of failure, so IGF-1 is useless as an efficacy check here. The only objective efficacy readout is body composition (scale, waist circumference, calipers, DEXA), and even that should be judged skeptically, since the larger, longer phase-2b obesity trials failed to beat placebo and the development program was terminated for lack of efficacy. Anyone told to "watch a lab" to prove this peptide is working is being misled.

Other ways to track it

DEXA scanIndirect / noisy

DEXA scan, total fat mass (regional/visceral fat reported but not the primary target)

A working fat-loss agent would show total fat mass drift down beyond what diet and training alone explain. AOD-9604 is a general lipolytic, not a VAT-selective agent like tesamorelin, so any real effect would be whole-body fat, not specifically visceral. Honest expectation: in the pivotal 24-week Phase IIb RCT (536 subjects, oral 0.25/0.5/1 mg) it produced no significant weight or fat loss versus placebo, so a flat DEXA is the most likely outcome. In n=1 use with no control arm, any change also cannot be cleanly separated from diet.

Fat reduction is the compound's sole claimed benefit, and DEXA is the highest-resolution objective measure of fat mass. Note the pivotal trials' primary endpoint was body weight (body composition and waist were secondary), not DEXA per se, so a flat DEXA is the evidence-consistent expectation, not a dosing failure.

Baseline DEXA, retest at ~12 weeks (its trials ran 12-24 weeks). Same scanner, fasted and hydrated, to keep the comparison clean.How to do it right
Body compositionNo signal

Tape-measure waist circumference + 7-day rolling scale-weight average (calipers optional)

Tracks the same fat-mass endpoint as DEXA but at far lower resolution and dominated by hydration, glycogen, sodium and day-to-day diet swings. In n=1 use it cannot isolate any peptide-attributable change, and the pivotal 24-week RCT showed no drug effect to detect. The Phase IIa study reported ~2.6 kg loss vs ~0.8 kg placebo, but the larger pivotal trial did not reproduce it, treat any drift here as diet and water noise, not evidence the peptide worked.

Cheap at-home proxy for the body-composition endpoint, but it adds no independent verification over DEXA and its noise floor exceeds any plausible peptide signal, especially one the pivotal RCT could not detect. Included for completeness, not because it can confirm efficacy.

Baseline waist + 7-day weight average, then recheck monthly through ~12 weeks.

Bottom line

AOD-9604's only objective efficacy readout is body composition, and even that barely qualifies: DEXA fat mass is the highest-resolution measure of the compound's sole claimed target, while at-home waist/weight cannot isolate a peptide effect at all. No glucose/CGM, IGF-1, sleep/HRV, VO2max, urine, stool, or genetic channel applies, across six human RCTs (~893 subjects) AOD-9604 had no effect on serum IGF-1 and no effect on fasting glucose, insulin or OGTT, and it has no GH-secretagogue or ghrelin activity, so there is no metabolic or sleep proxy to track. The catch is that the compound almost certainly does not move even the body-comp numbers: its pivotal 24-week Phase IIb RCT (536 subjects) failed to beat placebo and development was halted in March 2007. Track DEXA if you want, but interpret a flat result as consistent with the human evidence, not as a dosing failure, and know that any change over months cannot be cleanly separated from diet.

Logging baseline vs retest is the whole game. The Truth Tracker is our free log for bloodwork, DEXA, genetics, and wearable data, bring your own numbers.

How to track it
History

First documented human use: Human dosing began in Phase 1/2 trials run by Metabolic Pharmaceuticals (Monash University spin-out, Australia) starting around 2001; the published pooled human safety analysis (Stier et al., Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2013) covers six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials conducted 2001-2006 in roughly 900 obese adults. Unlike most peptides in this category, controlled human trials WERE completed, but the pivotal Phase 2b efficacy trial failed its primary endpoint and development was halted in 2007.

  1. 1990sResearchers at Monash University (Australia) map GH's fat-reducing activity to a small C-terminal region (~residues 176-191), spinning out Metabolic Pharmaceuticals to develop a fragment drug.
  2. ~2000-2001Preclinical metabolic and obese-mouse studies of the synthetic lipolytic fragment (AOD9604) published; first-in-human dosing begins.
  3. 2001-2006Six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled human trials conducted in ~900 obese adults (IV and oral; doses from 0.25 mg up to tens of mg).
  4. ~2004-2006A 12-week Phase 2b study in 300 obese adults is reported in a conference abstract (2005): more weight loss than placebo at every oral dose, largest at 1 mg, raising hopes for an oral anti-obesity drug.
  5. 2007Pivotal Phase 2b trial fails its primary weight-loss endpoint; Metabolic Pharmaceuticals halts the formal drug-development program.
  6. 2011-2013AOD-9604 self-affirmed as GRAS by its sponsor for use in supplements/foods (a company-determined status, NOT FDA approval); 2013 pooled human safety analysis published.
  7. ~2010s-2020sRepurposed by clinics/compounders for fat loss and (on animal data) joint health; named on WADA's prohibited list (S2.3, growth hormone fragments).
  8. Dec 4, 2024FDA Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee votes 12 to 0 that AOD-9604 NOT be placed on the 503A bulks list. It remains off the list.
All sources

Not medical advice. Grades reflect the evidence as of the date above and will change as data arrives. Reports from users are anecdote, not proof. Talk to a licensed clinician before you act on anything here.