There’s a difference between experimentation and improvisation.
Most people blur that line.
They read a Reddit thread.
They see a stack mentioned on X.
They hear a podcast clip.
Then they adjust their biology.
That isn’t biohacking.
That’s reacting.
True biohacking is structured.
It starts with a question.
Not a compound.
“What variable am I trying to change?”
“Is it metabolic?”
“Neurological?”
“Inflammatory?”
“Circadian?”
Peptides get attention because they’re powerful signaling molecules.
But peptides are just one lever.
Sleep architecture is a lever.
Glucose variability is a lever.
Light exposure is a lever.
Stress load is a lever.
If you don’t control those variables, adding compounds is noise.
This is the dilemma.
The community moves fast.
Institutions move slow.
Information moves faster than evidence.
So what do you trust?
The rational position is not blind skepticism.
And it’s not blind enthusiasm.
It’s structured curiosity.
That means:
• Baseline labs
• Defined protocols
• Controlled changes
• Measurable outcomes
Before touching advanced compounds, you should know:
• Fasting insulin
• ApoB
• hs-CRP
• Thyroid markers
• Liver enzymes
• Sleep metrics
If you don’t know your baseline, you’re guessing.
And guessing feels productive — but it isn’t.
If you’re serious about long-term autonomy, start with data.
That’s why we partner with Superpower.
Not because labs are exciting.
But because you can’t steer what you don’t measure.
Tomorrow we talk about why the gap between clinical science and online stacks keeps widening.