Anyone actually running SLU-PP-332 or is it still too experimental to have real opinions

[BERLINER]

I came across SLU-PP-332 reading about PPAR delta agonists and exercise mimetics. The mechanism is interesting - targets mitochondrial density and oxidative capacity similar to endurance training stimulus. I am already running test plus GH and looking at adding something for cardiovascular conditioning and fat metabolism. Has anyone actually used it or is the community data still basically zero?

[Beantown Rick]

Added it to my stack about 6 weeks ago alongside test, GH, and retatrutide. Way too early to give a proper verdict but cardiovascular endurance during training does seem slightly better. Could be placebo given how little data exists. The sourcing is a pain, only two suppliers I found stock it and one had it listed as out of stock for weeks. Community data is sparse - you are basically a pioneer if you run it right now.

[Davo]

Experimental research compound with zero human safety data. I will pass for now. The PPAR delta angle is interesting in theory but GW501516 was in the same category and the carcinogenicity data that came out later was not reassuring. Not saying SLU-PP-332 has the same issues but I need more than forum anecdotes before injecting something that new.

[Jock]

Same as Davo. GW comparison is the right one to make. PPAR agonists sound great on paper and the cardarine data from the early 2000s looked promising until the rodent studies showed accelerated tumour growth. Could be totally different with SLU-PP-332 but I am not putting myself in the trial cohort. Wait for actual human data.

[Mick AU]

Same concern as IronMike on this one. GW was promising until it was not. PPAR delta agonism sounds clean in the mechanism but that exact pathway is what made cardarine look appealing before the long term rodent data came in. Not saying history repeats but I am in no rush to find out. Give it 3-4 years and see if any human safety data emerges before considering it.

[BERLINER]

I started this thread and after reading the responses I am going to wait. The GW comparison is the right frame and I had not thought about it that way. I was focused on the mechanism being different but the class risk is a valid concern. I will keep it on the research list and revisit when there is actual human tolerability data. Thank you for the pushback, genuinely useful.