AOD-9604
A piece of growth hormone sold for fat loss. Its big weight-loss trial failed.
- What it is
- A small piece of the growth hormone molecule
- Is it FDA-approved?
- No. The weight-loss trial failed in 2007
- How strong is the proof?
- Weak. Its main human trial missed its goal
- How you take it
- A small shot under the skin, about 300 mcg a day
- Typical result
- No proven fat loss in people
- Biggest catch
- Paying clinic prices for a drug that failed
Any word with a dotted underline is a science word — tap it for a plain-English meaning.
In plain words.
AOD-9604 is the tail end of human growth hormone, cut off and used on its own. Growth hormone is a natural hormone that affects fat and muscle.
The idea was to keep the fat-burning part of growth hormone but drop the growth part. So it does not raise a growth signal called . That part of the pitch is true.
It is sold "for research only." That is the label. There is no version.
What people use it for.
People take it hoping to lose fat without the side effects of growth hormone.
Some hormone clinics sell it inside a "fat-loss ." Others pitch it for stubborn joints, like a bad knee or shoulder.
The fat-loss use is the main one. It is also the one the science does not support.
Does it actually work?
For fat loss, no. The trial answered that.
In 2007 a real study tested it in 536 obese adults for 24 weeks. It missed its main goal. The company stopped developing it as a weight-loss drug.
One thing to know: that trial used a 1 mg pill. The community uses a smaller 300 mcg shot instead. Pills of peptides barely absorb, so the shot is different. But no real trial has tested the shot. So buying the injectable is paying for an untested guess, not a fixed version of the failed trial.
what you’ve probably heard.
The claims floating around online, and how true they actually are.
“It's the fat-burning half of HGH with none of the downsides.”
half trueThe clean part is real: it does not raise the growth signal . The fat-burning part is the problem, because that is exactly what failed when they tested it.
“It's a proven fat-loss peptide.”
noA real trial put it in 536 obese adults for 24 weeks and it missed its main goal. The company shelved it as a weight-loss drug after that.
“The injectable works, the failed trial just used the wrong form.”
unprovenMaybe, but nobody has tested it. The failed trial used a 1 mg pill; the community uses a 300 mcg shot that never went through a trial. You would be buying a guess, not a fixed version.
“It rebuilds bad knees and shoulders.”
unprovenSome clinics pitch it for stubborn joints, but the human proof for that is not there. The joint use rides on hope, not a trial.
How you take it.
People use it as a small shot under the skin. The common dose people talk about is about 300 mcg a day.
That is a shot, meaning just under the skin. Its is short, around 30 minutes, so it clears the body fast.
This dose and route were never tested in a real trial. The failed trial used a pill at a higher dose.
What to watch out for.
The good news first. It does not raise , the growth signal. So it skips some of growth hormone's risks. It is also approved as a food additive in the US, which is a sign it is not toxic at small amounts.
The real catch is not a scary side effect. There is no long-term safety data. And you would be spending money on a drug whose fat-loss claim already failed in people.
Skip it if you have a growth-plate or child-related concern. See a hormone doctor instead.
Talk to a real doctor before trying it. We are not your doctor.
Where people get it.
Here are the ways people get it, from safest to riskiest.
- Brand. There is none. The trial failed and it was never sold as a drug.
- . Some clinics ship it, about $150 to $300 a month. It is for a failed use, so trust varies clinic to clinic.
- Research-only (). The main supply, about $50 to $150 a month. Sold "for research only." The only real check is , a lab test that confirms what the molecule is.
- . The cheapest, about $20 to $27 a month, paid by crypto. Identity is unverified.
Our honest take.
For fat loss, skip it. The trials already answered that question, and the answer was no.
The hormone-clinic pitch, where it sits next to sermorelin and ipamorelin, is the part we would walk away from. The markup against the evidence is the real joke.
The one narrow case: a stubborn joint that has had 12-plus weeks of real physical therapy, with a sports doctor watching. Even then, a short 12-week test only. Never chronic.
The studies behind this.
We read the research so you don't have to. Here's where the facts on this page come from.
- 01Wilding J. AOD-9604 Metabolic. Current opinion in investigational drugs (London, England : 2000). 2004;5(4):436-40. PMID: 15134286.
- 02Rahman OF, et al. Therapeutic Peptides in Orthopaedics: Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews. 2026;10(1). PMID: 41490200.
- 03Orlovius AK, et al. AOD-9604 does not influence the WADA hGH isoform immunoassay. Drug testing and analysis. 2013;5(11-12):850-2. PMID: 24124033.
- 04Schänzer W, et al. Human sports drug testing by mass spectrometry. Mass spectrometry reviews. 2017;36(1):16-46. PMID: 26213263.
- 05Bayes M, et al. Gateways to clinical trials. Methods and findings in experimental and clinical pharmacology. 2003;25(9):747-71. PMID: 14685303.
- 06Bayés M, et al. Gateways to clinical trials. Methods and findings in experimental and clinical pharmacology. 2005;27(3):193-219. PMID: 15834452.
- 07Halford JC. Obesity drugs in clinical development. Current opinion in investigational drugs (London, England : 2000). 2006;7(4):312-8. PMID: 16625817.
- 08Thevis M, et al. Analytical approaches for the detection of emerging therapeutics and non-approved drugs in human doping controls. Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis. 2014;101:66-83. PMID: 24906629.
- 09Bayés M, et al. Gateways to clinical trials. Methods and findings in experimental and clinical pharmacology. 2003;25(7):565-97. PMID: 14571286.
- 10Cox HD, et al. Detection and in vitro metabolism of AOD9604. Drug testing and analysis. 2015;7(1):31-8. PMID: 25208511.
- 11Thevis M, et al. Detecting peptidic drugs, drug candidates and analogs in sports doping: current status and future directions. Expert review of proteomics. 2014;11(6):663-73. PMID: 25382550.
- 12Mendias CL, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Approved and Unapproved Peptide Therapies for Musculoskeletal Injuries and Athletic Performance. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). 2026. PMID: 41966639.
- 13Thomas A, et al. Simplifying and expanding the screening for peptides <2 kDa by direct urine injection, liquid chromatography, and ion mobility mass spectrometry. Journal of separation science. 2016;39(2):333-41. PMID: 26578461.
- 14Kwon DR, et al. Effect of Intra-articular Injection of AOD9604 with or without Hyaluronic Acid in Rabbit Osteoarthritis Model. Annals of clinical and laboratory science. 2015;45(4):426-32. PMID: 26275694.
- 15Vanhee C, et al. Identification and characterization of peptide drugs in unknown pharmaceutical preparations seized by the Belgian authorities: case report on AOD9604. Drug testing and analysis. 2014;6(9):964-8. PMID: 24976118.
- 16Heffernan M, et al. The effects of human GH and its lipolytic fragment (AOD9604) on lipid metabolism following chronic treatment in obese mice and beta(3)-AR knock-out mice. Endocrinology. 2001;142(12):5182-9. PMID: 11713213.
Learn about these too.
We're not your doctor, and this isn't medical advice. It's a plain-English summary of what the research says, so you can have a smarter conversation with someone who is.
Want the rest of the peptide world, in plain English?
New breakdowns, safety updates, and what's actually worth your money. Free. Unsubscribe in one click.