SLU-PP-332 is sold as an exercise mimetic, and 133 people in our dataset cannot agree whether it belongs in micrograms or milligrams. That disagreement is the most useful thing in this file. It is not a rounding argument or a titration preference — the two camps are a thousandfold apart on what kind of compound this is, and no human study exists to settle it.
This page is a census of behaviour. It recommends nothing, and it proves nothing about whether the compound works.
What we hold, and what we count
ZyraTrack continuously indexes public peptide discussion — forums, comment threads, video transcripts — alongside the scientific literature. An extraction pipeline pulls out concrete usage claims: amount, unit, route, schedule, outcome.
For SLU-PP-332 that gives 216 structured reports, drawn from 156 public sources, written by 133 distinct people.
Those three numbers are different things, and the difference matters. A *report* is one usage claim. A *source* is one post or comment or transcript, which may carry several claims. A *person* is a person. Counting sources and calling them people inflates the human total by roughly a fifth, and it is an easy mistake to make — we made it ourselves before catching it in review, which is why the distinction is spelled out here rather than assumed.
Every figure on this page also excludes extractions the pipeline rejected — rows superseded by a later extraction pass, and rows where the model recorded an amount that does not appear in the quoted text. That filter removes about a third of the raw rows. Counts here are lower than an unfiltered query would return, and they are the ones we stand behind.
The finding: no agreement on the unit
Convert every reported dose to a single unit and line them up, and the split is almost perfectly even:
| Reported dose | Reports |
|---|---|
| Less than 1 mg | 100 |
| 1 mg or more | 112 |
212 of the 216 reports state a dose in milligrams or micrograms; the remaining four use other units. The middle half of all reports — the interquartile range — runs from 400 mcg to 10 mg, a 25-fold spread before you reach either tail. The full range is wider, and its extremes include rows that are almost certainly unit errors or hearsay rather than practice, which is why we quote the interquartile range rather than a headline minimum-to-maximum ratio.
The community is aware of the split and argues about it directly. One report tells other readers to try 300 mg by mouth and "not waste time with mcg". Another, written in German, wonders aloud why nothing is happening at 250 mcg. Both are describing the same compound.
The route contradiction
Of the 216 reports, 101 name a route. Of those, 78 describe swallowing the compound and 23 injecting it.
Set that against the literature. The 2026 paper introducing the successor compound describes SLU-PP-332 in its own abstract as a molecule that "improves aerobic performance in mice but lacks oral bioavailability"1. The same group then designed a chemically distinct successor, SLU-PP-915, specifically because the original does not survive being swallowed.
So more than three in four of the route-stating reports describe the one form its inventors ruled out. We report the contradiction; we do not resolve it, and nothing here suggests a different route.
What the studies actually found
Every efficacy result for this compound is an animal result, and in the exercise work the compound was given intraperitoneally — injected into the abdomen — not by mouth.
| Study | Model | Key result | Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Synthetic ERR agonist, acute exercise response2 | Mouse | Induced an ERRalpha-dependent acute aerobic exercise response; enhanced exercise capacity | 2023 |
| Synthetic ERR agonist in metabolic syndrome3 | Mouse (obesity / metabolic syndrome) | Reduced fat mass and improved metabolic parameters | 2024 |
| Pan-ERR agonists in heart failure4 | Rodent | Improved cardiac fatty-acid metabolism and mitochondrial function | 2024 |
| Targeting ERRs against muscle atrophy5 | Human myoblasts (cells) | Metabolic and expression changes in cells from inactive women | 2025 |
| Orally active successor SLU-PP-9151 | Mouse | Matched SLU-PP-332 on distance and duration when injected; comparable given orally, adjusted for exposure | 2026 |
We hold 17 papers on this compound and 7 full texts. None of them is a human trial of SLU-PP-332.
What people say happened
Of the 216 reports, 52 describe a positive result, 11 are mixed, and 7 are explicitly negative. The remaining 146 state no outcome at all.
Resist the obvious reading of 52-to-7. An uncontrolled, self-selected, publicly posted sample produces flattering ratios for essentially any intervention: people who felt nothing rarely write a post, and people who had a bad time often leave the forum. We publish the ratio for transparency, not as a finding.
The positives cluster on three things — energy, fat loss, and cardio that feels easier. The negatives are equally specific; one report describes trying it at 20 mg a day and concluding it "doesn't work, at all".
The adverse reports, counted honestly
Fifteen of the 216 reports describe something adverse. That is a count from a public log. It is not an incidence rate, and it cannot be one: nobody here was followed up, no denominator is known, and under-reporting of harm is the expected bias in this kind of sample.
Within those fifteen the pattern repeats: raised heart rate in three reports, running hot in two, headache in two, hunger in two. That shape is unsurprising for a molecule intended to push cells to burn more.
One report sits far outside the rest, describing a week at 30 mg twice daily followed by burnout, low energy and brain fog that had not resolved. We include it because excluding outliers from a safety picture is how safety pictures get flattering, not because it establishes a threshold.
Detection came before efficacy
Two of the seventeen papers we hold exist to detect this compound and its successor in a sample, characterising their metabolites for doping-control purposes67.
That produces an unusual scoreboard. The analytical science needed to catch SLU-PP-332 in an athlete is published and peer-reviewed. The clinical science needed to say whether it does anything in a person is not. Both papers describe "doping potential" and "doping-control purposes"; neither is a statement about prohibited-list status, and we make no claim about that here.
The successor almost nobody has
SLU-PP-915 is the compound the same laboratory built to solve the oral problem. It is described as chemically distinct and orally bioavailable, and in their tests it matched SLU-PP-332 on running distance and duration when injected, while maintaining comparable efficacy given by mouth after adjusting for systemic exposure1.
Our log contains zero dose reports for SLU-PP-915 — it is not offered for sale. And yet 14 separate discussions in our corpus already name it, several of them citing the paper accurately to other readers and asking why the version the inventors ruled out is the one being shipped.
That is worth stating plainly: the correction is already circulating in the comments. It has not reached the people making purchases. And SLU-PP-915 has never been tested in a human either — the same gap, one molecule along.
Methodology and limitations
Community reports come from ZyraTrack's continuously-updated index of public peptide discussion. The extraction pipeline identifies concrete usage claims, which pass through tiering rules and human spot-checks; animal reports, study descriptions and hearsay are tagged and excluded from human counts. Ambiguous units are flagged rather than silently corrected, which is why the microgram/milligram split above survives in the data instead of being normalised away.
Known limitations, plainly. The sample is self-selected and skews toward people who post. One person can appear in several reports, which is why the person count (133) is derived from a stable identity key rather than from the number of posts (156) or claims (216). Route is unstated in 115 of the 216 reports, and those are excluded from the route comparison. Roughly 20% of reports carry no identity we can resolve, so the person count is a floor. Nothing here is verified against a purchase, a lab test, or a scale. Counts are a point-in-time snapshot and will move as the corpus grows.
Our full corpus methodology is on the methodology page, and the research library is browsable at /research/.
ZyraTrack is a research and education tool. This page is educational and is not medical advice. We never sell or source compounds, never recommend doses, and refuse sourcing questions. SLU-PP-332 is not an approved medicine anywhere and has never been tested in a human trial.