On June 18, GPNi organized a special event at the ISSN 2026 conference: the recording and live streaming of the “Peptides” online seminar.
The level of interest in this webinar, to some extent, underscored the immense popularity of the topic “Peptides.” In the lead-up to the event, participants from various countries and regions—including the United States, Canada, Brazil, Chile, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, and Japan—registered. Among them were sports nutritionists, registered dietitians, athletes, coaches, students majoring in sports nutrition, as well as business owners and employees from the sports nutrition and health industries.
On the day of the event, more than 70 attendees joined the discussion in real time. Due to differences in time zones and work schedules, many registered participants who were unable to attend live continued to inquire about replay arrangements after the event. GPNi will subsequently produce a full-length recording and highlights, complete with Chinese subtitles, to allow Chinese-speaking users to watch and learn from the content repeatedly. During this live stream, we also made special efforts to accommodate non-English-speaking viewers. Before the conference began, the GPNi team provided a detailed introduction to Zoom’s AI captioning and translation features to help attendees from diverse linguistic backgrounds better follow the discussion.
Of course, what’s most worth revisiting is exactly what was discussed during this online seminar.
▍This Is Not a Peptide Sales Pitch
Drew Campbell, founder and CEO of GPNi, made it clear at the outset of the conference that the goal was not to promote peptide products—not to tell people which products to use, where to buy them, or how to use them—but rather to explain what peptides are, which ones have been approved, which are still under research, and how nutritionists, coaches, athletes, and ordinary consumers should understand the boundaries involved.
Over the past few decades, the sports nutrition industry has seen many trends—such as creatine and cannabidiol (CBD)—but peptides seem quite different from them. They are no longer just a topic in the gym; they have also entered the realms of weight management, medical clinics, everyday households, and social media discussions.
▍Rick Collins: First, Let’s Clarify the Categories and Boundaries of Peptides
Rick is the keynote speaker at this online seminar, and Drew refers to him as the “Peptide Lawyer.” Because Rick has long dealt with issues related to health, fitness, dietary supplements, and relevant regulations, his presentation will focus less on the effects and functions we’re familiar with and more on legal and regulatory matters.
First, Rick explained that peptides are essentially short chains composed of amino acids. Insulin is a peptide, growth hormone is a peptide, and collagen-related products may also be referred to as peptides; in the field of nutrition, hydrolyzed protein, hydrolyzed collagen, and similar products often involve the concept of peptides. However, this does not mean that all peptide products fall under the same regulatory framework, and it is precisely for this reason that confusion often arises in the market.
This was the core point Rick emphasized throughout the seminar: do not automatically assume that an ingredient is a nutritional supplement or a natural amino acid simply because it is called a peptide. Today, people on social media often discuss peptides in a very casual manner, even saying, “Aren’t they just amino acids?” But this statement is highly misleading. While many pharmaceutical-grade peptides are composed of amino acids, they are specially engineered and cannot simply be equated with ordinary proteins or amino acid supplements.
From a regulatory perspective, Rick broadly categorizes the peptides currently on the market into three groups. The first consists of those already approved for use as prescription drugs, such as GLP-1 agonists; however, these products should be used under a doctor’s supervision.
Second are novel compounds still in the research and development or approval process, such as Retatrutide. Retatrutide is considered a potential next-generation weight management drug, but it cannot yet be regarded as a mature, officially approved medication—and this is precisely where risks may arise, as data on its safety and efficacy have not yet been established through a comprehensive approval process.
Even more complicated are products sold online under the label “Research Use Only,” such as BPC-157 and TB-500, which are not approved for use in humans. Furthermore, even when a product is labeled “Not for Human Use,” but its marketing and target audience clearly indicate intended human use, this raises serious legal and regulatory issues. This is because regulatory agencies do not merely examine what the label states; they also consider the actual sales context and intended use.
For peptide products that are unapproved and lack systematic human studies, we often do not know the appropriate dosage, frequency of use, or long-term safety; an even more pressing concern is the uncertainty regarding contamination, adulteration, or insufficient purity.
Many people share on social media that “I felt great after using it,” but individual experiences cannot replace clinical studies, nor can they rule out the placebo effect.
What Rick really wants to remind everyone is that the peptide craze is pushing many issues—which originally fell under the purview of medicine, drug approval, and professional regulation—into the hands of ordinary consumers. For industry professionals, the greatest danger is not a lack of knowledge about peptide products, but a failure to realize that the levels of evidence, legal liabilities, and health risks associated with different categories are entirely distinct.
▍Dr. Seiji Aoyagi: GLP-1 Is All the Rage, but Eating Less Is Just the Beginning
Dr. Seiji Aoyagi, the head of GPNi Japan whom we all know well, focused on the nutritional issues faced by GLP-1 users. He began by explaining that GLP-1 itself is a natural hormone secreted by the human small intestine, while the GLP-1 medications currently under discussion are, more accurately, GLP-1 receptor agonists. These agents suppress appetite, delay gastric emptying, and influence insulin and glucagon-related responses, thereby helping to control blood sugar and weight.
However, Dr. Aoyagi pointed out that while GLP-1 may make it easier to eat less, if a person’s total caloric intake simply decreases without changes to their dietary composition—resulting in insufficient protein intake and a lack of resistance training—some of the weight lost may be lean body mass. In particular, many users experience gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, which can further affect their appetite and food choices. In the long term, strength, metabolism, physical function, and body composition may all be negatively affected; some people may even experience weight regain after discontinuing the medication. Dr. Seiji made an important distinction between weight loss and fat loss. Weight loss simply means a decrease in the number on the scale, whereas fat loss involves maintaining muscle mass.
Here’s a clear example: Obese individuals often have diets that are low in protein but high in fat. When total caloric intake decreases, protein intake also drops—and may even become insufficient. However, if the diet is adjusted to a higher-protein, lower-fat pattern, protein intake can increase significantly; the difference between the two approaches can be as much as 100 grams of protein per day. This difference is particularly critical for those who wish to preserve muscle mass, improve body composition, and maintain training performance.
Dr. Seiji mentioned that some walk-in clinics in North America have made tests for GLP-1, testosterone, NAD+, and other markers a routine part of their services. From an Asian market perspective, this might seem a bit “unthinkable,” but the fact is that even if these tests become routine, relying solely on injections—without nutritional guidance, lifestyle adjustments, and changes in dietary habits—cannot solve all problems.
Dr. Seiji also discussed the assessment of protein quality. The DIAAS score focuses more on digestible essential amino acids and can more accurately reflect how protein is digested, absorbed, and utilized by the body. Drew summarized this with an easy-to-remember phrase: “The key to nutrition isn’t just how much you eat, but how much your body actually digests, absorbs, and utilizes.” In other words, the key to protein intake isn’t just the number of grams, but whether it’s easily digestible, provides sufficient essential amino acids, and truly supports muscle protein synthesis and physical recovery. This is particularly important for GLP-1 users. Because their appetite decreases and gastrointestinal tolerance may change, nutritional advice cannot simply be limited to “eat more protein”; instead, it must consider protein quality, form of intake, meal timing, training status, and individual tolerance.
During the subsequent Q&A session, someone asked whether a high-protein intake is appropriate for GLP-1 users. Drew explained that the 3 g/kg protein intake figure was cited from Dr. Jose Antonio’s research on athletes and was not a direct recommendation for GLP-1 users. For GLP-1 users, the range mentioned in Dr. Seiji’s presentation is closer to 1.3–1.6 g/kg.
Dr. Seiji and Drew also repeatedly emphasized that while GLP-1 can help reduce appetite, it is not a substitute for meal planning or training. Rick added from another perspective that GLP-1 is a valuable tool, but without lifestyle changes, high-quality protein, resistance training, and supervision by doctors and nutrition professionals, it is easy to mistake “weight loss” for “becoming healthier.”
▍Q&A: It’s Not Just About Peptides—It’s About Real Nutritional Issues
After the presentation, we moved on to the Q&A session, which participants had been eagerly anticipating. The audience’s questions didn’t stop at the conceptual level but delved directly into practical applications.
Someone asked if Rick could recommend any reputable peptide companies. Rather than making direct recommendations, Rick pointed out that the real question isn’t “which company is reputable,” but whether the product itself operates within a framework of compliance, evidence, and medical oversight. Under U.S. law, if a non-food product is intended to affect the structure or function of the human body, it may fall under the definition of a “drug.” Therefore, even if a product is labeled “not for human use,” legal and regulatory issues may arise if its sale and intended use clearly indicate that it is meant for human consumption. This also underscores that we cannot rely solely on the text on the packaging or user experiences shared on social media. The more important questions are whether the product has been approved, whether there is clinical evidence from human trials, whether it is under medical supervision, and whether its sale and use comply with regulations.
Some participants also returned to the topic of traditional supplements, asking how to take creatine. Dr. Seiji and Drew’s answers were largely consistent: for general exercise and maintaining muscle creatine stores, 3–5 grams per day is a common practice. Drew also added that creatine is one of the most extensively studied nutritional supplements, and the ISSN has published very comprehensive position papers on its safety, efficacy, and dosage; those interested can read further. Additionally, more and more people are discussing creatine in relation to cognition and memory, and some are experimenting with higher doses. However, for most people, 3–5 grams per day remains the more common and safer intake strategy.
Some viewers also asked questions about artificial sweeteners like aspartame. Drew’s response was straightforward: he is not personally a supporter of aspartame and does not generally recommend it. Regarding sucralose, he believes there is relatively less controversy, though he noted that some people may experience gastrointestinal discomfort or bloating. The discussion then turned to other sweeteners, including stevia and monk fruit.
Dr. Seiji mentioned that monk fruit is good, but it’s very sweet. Here, Seiji pointed out that sweet taste preferences can actually be trained. If a person consumes very sweet foods over a long period, they’ll become increasingly accustomed to sweetness; conversely, if they consciously reduce their intake of sweetness, their taste buds will gradually adapt. Drew also noted that while demand for natural sweeteners is indeed growing, from a flavor performance perspective, artificial sweeteners often make it easier to achieve the sweetness consumers are familiar with, whereas natural sweeteners present greater challenges in formulation.
These issues may not all seem directly related to peptides themselves, but in real-world practice, the consultations that sports nutritionists, coaches, and practitioners encounter rarely revolve around a single concept. These practical questions, in fact, made this seminar all the more meaningful.
This GPNi online seminar is just the beginning. The full recording and highlights are currently being produced. For those who missed the live stream, the recording will serve as a more comprehensive resource; for viewers who attended the live session, rewatching it will help them better digest the content regarding regulations, nutrition, and practical boundaries.
In the future, GPNi will continue to host discussions on sports nutrition, inviting more international experts to participate. Trending topics will not diminish, but professional judgment will become increasingly important.