The Complete Peptide Intelligence Report
Thirty-five compounds, nine protocol categories, nineteen blends — and a book that spends its opening pages arguing you should probably use fewer of them. That tension is the whole design.
- Edition
- 2026, Revision 29
- Compounds profiled
- 35+
- Protocol categories
- 9
- Blends detailed
- 19
- Dosing tiers per compound
- 3 — conservative, moderate, advanced
- Level
- 4 · Advanced
- Price
- $44
- Format
- Digital, personal licence
Sold through Gumroad. Immediate download, personal licence. Each edition carries a revision number so you can tell which version you hold.
A decision-making resource, not a protocol book
Most peptide material answers the question people arrive with: what should I take. CPIR answers a different one — how would you decide, and how would you know whether you were right?
The difference shows up immediately. Before any compound appears, the report asks you to name the biological process you're trying to influence, and it keeps asking. Every chapter is built so that the mechanism arrives before the dose, the limitations arrive before the protocol, and the question of whether you need the compound at all is raised before the question of how much.
It does contain dosing tables, contraindications, and stack compatibility. It would be a worse book without them — people are making these decisions whether or not anyone helps. But those tables sit inside a structure designed to slow the decision down, and the report says so in the preface rather than burying it.
The modern peptide space rewards escalation — more compounds, higher doses, faster stacking. Lower doses, fewer simultaneous variables, and longer observation windows frequently produce better outcomes with fewer unintended consequences.
What "conservative" means here, and why it's defined
One definition in the preface tells you most of what you need to know about the book's posture. Throughout CPIR, conservative means the lowest range where meaningful biological activity is commonly observed in real-world research use — deliberately not the lowest dose in published clinical studies, because those trials were designed to demonstrate efficacy in screened populations, not to establish gentle onboarding for someone navigating this without medical oversight.
That distinction is unusual and it matters. It means the report treats its own reference ranges as a starting hypothesis rather than a target, and it says outright that if the conservative range feels like too much, begin at half.
Written with women in the sample
The preface notes something most compound references leave out entirely: women frequently respond at lower doses than standard frameworks suggest — particularly with mitochondrial peptides, AMPK activators, GH secretagogues, and neuroactive compounds. The report treats a smaller-than-expected response as valid data rather than as evidence that a compound isn't working.
This is the flagship of a women-centered library, and that shows up in dose framing rather than in a chapter heading.
Five questions, before any compound is evaluated.
These appear in the front matter of CPIR and govern every chapter after it. They're reproduced here because they're the most portable thing in the book — they work on compounds the report has never covered, and on claims made somewhere else entirely.
What biological process am I trying to influence?
Not which compound. Which process. The precision of this answer determines the quality of everything after it.
What level of evidence supports this approach?
Human, animal, or cell culture — and reproduced by how many independent groups.
What outcome will tell me it is working?
Decided in advance. An outcome chosen afterwards is a story, not a finding.
What variables could limit the response?
Sleep, nutrition, stress, medication, hormonal phase. Usually the reason something didn't work.
Is there a simpler intervention that should come first?
The question the industry has the least interest in you asking.
Six movements, in the same order, thirty-five times.
Once you've read one compound chapter you can read any of them, because the shape never changes. The order is doing deliberate work: understanding arrives before mechanism, limitations arrive before dosing, and the reason to combine anything arrives last.
- 1In Plain EnglishThe biological purpose, before any terminology.
- 2MechanismHow the signalling pathway actually works.
- 3Research-Observed BenefitsDemonstrated findings, separated from expectations.
- 4LimitationsTrade-offs and unanswered questions — before the dose, never after.
- 5DosingEducational reference points. Explicitly not goals to reach.
- 6SynergyWhy compounds complement one another, asked before whether to combine them.
How the author reads research
CPIR rarely calls a compound good or bad, and the front matter explains why: research is rarely that simple. Five questions determine how much confidence a finding earns.
- Was this demonstrated in humans, animals, or only in cell culture?
- Has the finding been reproduced by multiple research groups?
- Does the proposed mechanism make biological sense?
- Are the reported benefits clinically meaningful, or only statistically significant?
- What risks, limitations, or unanswered questions remain?
The fourth question is the one that catches the most claims. A statistically significant result in a large trial can describe a change too small to notice, and the gap between those two things is where a great deal of marketing lives.
What it refuses to do
CPIR states plainly that it is not a substitute for medical care and that its dosing tables are educational reference points rather than targets. It notes — in the chapter on the most popular compound class in the world right now — that vendor titration schedules are sales strategies rather than medical protocols. It lists non-negotiable contraindications before it lists benefits.
It also declines the thing readers most want from it. It will not tell you which peptide is best. The report's position is that the question itself is malformed: multiple compounds affect the same system through different mechanisms and trade-offs, so learning to compare those differences is worth more than any ranking could be.
Where it sits in the library
CPIR is the central reference point for the wider Elevora curriculum, and it's built to hand you off. Where a topic needs more practical instruction or deeper systems education, the report points to companion resources — the reconstitution guide, the cellular energy and mitochondrial function material — placed at the moment they answer your most likely next question.
It's a Level 4 reference, which means it assumes rather than rebuilds. Readers arriving here first will get more from it after the research literacy titles and at least one systems foundation. That isn't gatekeeping; the report is simply written for someone who already has the vocabulary, and reading it without that is a slower route to the same place.
CPIR is revised continuously and each edition carries its revision number on the cover. Revision 29 substantively rewrote the GHK-Cu, KPV, and ARA-290 chapters — plain-language openings, clearer mechanism teaching, evidence-context distinctions, revised limitations, and stronger safety framing. Publishing the revision record rather than quietly updating the file is deliberate: you should be able to see what changed and when.
This is a Level 4 reference. These make it considerably more useful.
-
Read first
Reading Research Like a Scientist
Evidence grading and study design. CPIR's five research questions assume this, and the report's chapters get sharper once you have it.
-
Read first
Sequencing: What to Address First
The fifth decision-framework question — is there a simpler intervention — is this publication's entire subject.
-
Curriculum
Where this sits
Stage eight of nine. Seeing what comes before it explains why the report reads the way it does.