Why this exists
Research compounds — peptides, SARMs, experimental pharma — get written about in three places: forum threads (loud but unreliable), supplement vendor blogs (optimised for a sale), and PubMed (accurate but impenetrable). That gap is where SupplementCycle lives.
Every compound page follows the same skeleton: mechanism, key benefits, typical protocols, timeline, side effects, references. Where the human evidence is thin — most SARMs, most experimental peptides — we say so, and we link to the primary source. “Study on one type of cell in a dish” doesn't get written up like a Phase-3 trial here.
What it isn't
SupplementCycle is not medical advice. It is not a pharmacy and sells nothing itself. It has no signup and no paywall. It does not tell you to take anything.
Many compounds covered here are prescription-only, experimental, or outright unapproved for human use in the UK and other jurisdictions. The site aims to help you understand the mechanism, the maths, and the evidence — so you can have a better conversation with a doctor, not skip one.
Who writes this
SupplementCycle is not written by clinicians. No doctor, pharmacist or regulator is behind it, and you will not find a clinical judgement anywhere on the site — not in a compound page, not in a stack, not in a cycle plan.
What you will find is what each cited source actually says, assembled carefully, with weak evidence marked as weak. That is a deliberate limit rather than modesty: the value here is in the sourcing and the arithmetic, so trust the citations rather than us. Every compound page links the trials, PubMed records and regulatory documents behind it, and where the human evidence is thin we say so instead of quietly filling the gap.
The rules behind that — which sources are allowed, which are refused, what the evidence tiers mean, and why the safety check says “insufficient data” rather than “clear” — are written out in full on the methodology page.
How the site is paid for
Running this costs money, and the plan is for the site to cover its own costs. Google's advertising code is on the site now; ads begin appearing once Google has reviewed and approved it. Some outbound links to retailers will later be affiliate links that pay a commission on a sale — those will be labelled as such where they appear.
What that money does not buy: which compounds are listed, how they rank for a goal, what the evidence tiers say, or what the safety flags warn about. Those come from the data and the cited sources, and no advertiser or retailer has any say in them. If that ever stops being true, this page will say so first.
Where the data comes from
The compound catalogue — its structure and much of its descriptive text — comes from the open-source peptide-db project, reused under the MIT licence and corrected, restructured and extended for SupplementCycle; the licence notice is in the terms. Citations on each compound page link to the underlying clinical trials, PubMed records, and regulatory documents.
The calculators (reconstitution, TDEE + GLP-1 projection) are built from published equations and trial endpoints — each page shows the formula and the sources it was fit to.
UK-first, but not UK-only
The disclaimers and legal framing on this site are tuned to the UK regulatory environment (MHRA, GPhC) because that's where the project is based. If you're reading from another jurisdiction, the education still applies — the legal status and availability of specific compounds almost certainly doesn't. Check your own regulator.
Feedback
SupplementCycle is new and under active build. If you spot an error, a stale citation, or a compound that badly needs a page, we want to hear it — a correction is the most useful thing anyone sends us. The address is on the contact page.