One can barely have a conversation, scroll social media or read the news without hearing about peptides. What’s the deal?I recently watched a Sky News video documenting the explosion in peptide use. The main message was that these are mostly classified as “research chemicals” and that while their benefits are openly debated, their long-term effects on humans are mostly unknown.You’re right. So-called fitness and wellness Instagram and YouTube channels are awash with peptide content. It’s not just social media, though.At a birthday lunch not too long ago we were talking to an 80-year-old woman. The conversation ebbed and flowed between President Donald Trump and dieting, as one would expect. Suddenly she wondered out loud whether she “should look into Mounjaro”. She appeared bemused by my surprise. Who can blame her? All the young kids between 40 and 60 talk about Mounjaro and Ozempic all the time.Peptides are short chains of amino acids that act as powerful messengers in the body. They have attracted a huge amount of attention for claims about their ability to boost collagen for firmer skin (yes please), reduce inflammation (I could do with that), speed up recovery (it feels like I don’t heal as quickly as before), improve sleep (please, because I toss and turn during the morning hours), boost gut health (we all know that’s important), support muscle growth (who wouldn’t want that in their 40s?) and, of course, support fat loss. I’m sure there’s more if you take the time to research it.Some peptides are registered and widely available and some are registered and require a prescription to use. Others are classified as research chemicals and live in a grey area.Interestingly, in the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is looking at easing restrictions on popular compounded peptides. Its pharmacy compounding advisory committee will meet in July to consider increasing access to popular peptides, backed by health secretary Robert F Kennedy.The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority has a clear stance. It has issued strong warnings against the sale and use of unregistered peptides. In its communications, it emphasises that many, if not most, products have not been assessed for safety, quality or efficacy and pose serious health risks to the public.Then there are those who swear by them. One of the most famous of these is William Seeds, a board-certified orthopaedic surgeon in the US. He founded the International Peptide Society and Seeds Scientific Research and Performance Institute.He wrote the book Peptide Protocols: Volume One, lectures extensively and is said to have trained thousands of doctors. He is the founder and chair of the International Peptide Society. It is portrayed as the leading professional organisation dedicated to advancing safe, evidence-informed peptide use. The society positions peptides as frontier medicine that belongs in mainstream healthcare.Seeds doesn’t ignore that human data is missing and he publicly acknowledges the need for more large-scale human trials. Much to the irritation, one would presume, of regulatory authorities, he publicly argues that existing evidence, safety profiles and clinical outcomes justify broader adoption and physician education, rather than outright dismissal. The message is always about moving peptides from a wellness grey area to evidence-based medicine.Medical resources such as the American Medical Association, Scientific American and various academic reviews often reference “promise” in areas such as recovery and inflammation reduction. Importantly, they also always stress the lack of large, randomised human trials for research peptides and caution.Many argue caution isn’t just red tape but a genuine response to the lack of human data and the high risk of contamination of products being developed in unregulated labs. Those cautioning the public speak of dangers including potential immune reactions and the theoretical risk of promoting unintended cell growth.There are clearly two distinct schools of thought on the topic, and they are miles apart. With a laser-sharp focus on user safety, something has to give because even a layman can see that the peptide horse has bolted. As it stands, you and I are only left with warnings on the one hand and the promise of groundbreaking therapies on the other. That gap needs to be bridged.