CommunityDosing & Titration

MOTS-C and SS31

30 replies15 peopleMay 1, 2026☆ Follow
Summary

Do you need to cycle SS-31 with MOTS-c to notice benefits without excessive tiredness, and is an 800 calorie diet safe alongside tirzepatide and these peptides?

Participants share varied experiences with MOTS-c dosing alone versus combined with SS-31, noting that some feel energy gains only after adding SS-31 while others report no effects or try alternate-day MOTS-c to limit fatigue. A lengthy side discussion debates the risks of sustained 800-calorie intake with tirzepatide, citing personal lifelong obesity struggles, metabolic adaptation, and older very-low-calorie diet studies versus warnings about health dangers and the need for resets. Several users describe improved energy or weight loss on the peptides but differ on whether exercise meaningfully affects results in adapted metabolisms.

What this discussion establishesWhere people disagree

Whether 800 calories is dangerously low or manageable long-term with medical checks, and whether exercise can truly fail to increase net calorie burn due to adaptive compensation

Still open

Optimal cycling protocols for MOTS-c and SS-31, long-term safety of very low calorie diets with GLP-1s, and individual mitochondrial health factors determining peptide response

Nothing here is advice.

30 replies · 15 people
SharpTimber40archiveopening postMay 1

Is cycling SS31 required before you can notice any benefits from MOTS? I took my first 2mg dose of MOTS and now wonder if running SS31 is absolutely necessary. The price hasn't looked reasonable and it supposedly causes serious tiredness, which I already have chronically. Maybe only some people need it? Also, will I notice MOTS-c effects quickly enough to decide if I need to change the plan?

AmberHarbour81archiveMay 1

I heard taking MOTS every other day avoids the tiredness problem. I don't feel anything from either MOTS or SS31 but at least I'm finally dropping weight with tirz plus MOTS while keeping calories at 800.

SharpTimber40archiveMay 1
↳ replying to @AmberHarbour81

That level seems really harsh. Do you track every portion on a scale? Did you get any medical tests run lately? Grown people just aren't meant to limit themselves that way.

AmberHarbour81archiveMay 1
↳ replying to @SharpTimber40

Everyone keeps warning me about this approach yet nothing else has delivered results like this one does. I'm doing okay physically which is why I continue using it. Individuals without years of dealing with severe weight issues from childhood just can't relate to those daily struggles.

RustThistle35archiveMay 4
↳ replying to @AmberHarbour81

Right there with you but dang 800 calories.

AmberHarbour81archiveMay 5
↳ replying to @RustThistle35

Sure surviving normally on such low intake feels impossible although dying would make every issue irrelevant.

LevelFenwick49archiveMay 5
↳ replying to @AmberHarbour81

Hoping you'll manage to climb back over a thousand since eight hundred probably feels terrible. On the subject of those two compounds I'm still unsure how to approach them. It all comes down to the benefits one wants from the first. When I get to the energy cell regimen I'll likely start by cycling the other. What's the cost level you're encountering?

GreenMarble65archiveMay 5
↳ replying to @SharpTimber40 (opening post)

I'm wondering about the same issue. Recently I began ss31 with plans to add motsc seven days afterward. Spacing the introductions allows me to determine which one might be causing changes if any appear. Thus far the ss31 has produced no visible results. Because of the high cost I won't obtain more after completing this round unless it seems required.

SteadyQuill18archiveMay 5
↳ replying to @AmberHarbour81

Consuming that few calories daily strikes me as really hazardous. I worry my system might start failing if i keep it up. I went right into the every other day approach with one item and skipped trying the first option altogether.

GreenWillow59archiveMay 5

A few weeks back I began using the MOTS compound without noticing any changes at all. My energy levels might have even dropped a bit though that could stem from other situations in my life. I then moved on to the SS-31 because it was my original plan but the first substance showed up sooner and I couldn't wait. I followed a schedule I came across online involving five milligrams of SS-31 on five days each week along with the other item on the remaining two days continuing that way for three weeks before switching to the MOTS on three specific weekdays and incorporating NAD instead on the rest. After including the SS-31 my energy picked up a lot within the initial seven days. It appears that adding this helped when the MOTS alone produced no results.

WarmSparrow60archiveMay 5
↳ replying to @SharpTimber40 (opening post)

I moved my SS-31 shots over to the middle of the afternoon and everything feels solid now. For MOTS-c I do five milligrams every other morning on an empty stomach. This round is my second time through and the first one left me sleepy early in the day. Right now I am eleven days into the thirty day stretch on SS-31 and the combined effects are starting to show up for me.

PatientCompass14archiveMay 5
↳ replying to @SharpTimber40 (opening post)

Mot c performance hinges on the state of your mitochondria. I consumed it each morning on an empty stomach at five to ten milligrams daily, reaching fifteen to thirty milligrams total each week by dosing three times. I followed a pattern of four weeks using it amounting to sixty through one hundred twenty milligrams overall before taking four weeks without.

PlainAnchor17archiveMay 5
↳ replying to @SteadyQuill18

I get taken aback realizing the extended stretches earlier humans managed without taking in any food at all.

SharpBramble33archiveMay 5
↳ replying to @SharpTimber40

After dealing with stalled progress on shedding pounds for many months despite repeated drops in intake, I took time away from my usual routine for about a month or two. Switching to alternate substances let my system regain sensitivity, while adding movement such as a stroll following meals kept me from entering that deep holding pattern where the body clings to every bit. Bringing food levels back up toward normal allowed things to settle, even with a temporary rise on the scale, before resuming the earlier items and seeing movement again. All this draws from my own time handling extended efforts with various substances alongside regular activity. Situations vary, yet that level of restriction feels unsustainable. Wishing the best, as this group has plenty of supportive folks around.

SteadyQuill18archiveMay 6
↳ replying to @PlainAnchor17

That's all they knew. They didn't choose it.

CopperSignal27archiveMay 6

Eating just 800 calories each day does not strike me as particularly drastic. Plenty of research exists around extremely restricted eating plans near 400 calories daily, sometimes continuing for many months or even a full year, which used to be the standard approach for handling serious excess weight without operations back before these newer medications. Protein usually supplies most of the energy in those plans. Such tight limits can bring risks like shifts in mineral balance and greater tiredness, so regular doctor visits seem sensible. At that level weight may barely move once someone has already shed substantial amounts or stayed restricted for ages, since metabolism slows considerably, or if the person happens to be quite petite. My own daily burn fell by half after dropping from 145 kg down to 75 kg, so early on I shed around 6 kg monthly while eating 1600 to 1800 calories, yet later that same amount merely held the scale steady. Maintaining on those numbers feels far easier over time than sticking to 800, though before the medications it meant staying hungry most of the time. Putting the weight back on would also carry real dangers for me. From what you wrote about 800 being preferable to worse outcomes, it sounds like you face comparable concerns. I do not agree with pausing the medications, since nothing shows the body builds resistance to their ongoing ability to reduce weight, aside from one unrepeated mouse experiment where interrupting the drugs cut the benefit sharply. Forum members have mentioned struggling to drop more after resuming, though that often happens simply because prior losses mean the drugs mainly hold the line rather than push further downward. Should the pause-and-restart pattern prove true in people, it would not improve matters. Are you already using the 15 mg strength of tirzepatide? Stronger amounts sometimes boost metabolism enough to speed reduction or permit slightly higher intake while keeping the same pace. Retatrutide might also be useful because its glucagon action raises daily burn by roughly 100 to 200 calories. Much depends on prior attempts and how side effects have played out.

AmberHarbour81archiveMay 8
↳ replying to @SteadyQuill18

Two days ago I got an ultrasound done on every one of my internal organs and I'm planning to repeat the scans after each twenty five pound reduction. Being located in Colombia makes these procedures quite inexpensive.

AmberHarbour81archiveMay 8
↳ replying to @SharpBramble33

My metabolism has slowed down dramatically because of all the restrictive eating I've done over a long time, with things like cutting carbs, going without food for periods, and keeping calories super low. My background in working out makes this situation even tougher. So as long as the weight is coming off at that low number of calories, I'm sticking with it no matter what.

AmberHarbour81archiveMay 8
↳ replying to @CopperSignal27

I'm grateful for your detailed answer. Right now I'm on 4mg of the medication and could increase the amount, yet I'm shedding pounds while eating just 800 calories daily, feeling fine throughout the day with no appetite, so I'll stick to this approach. Over the past couple years I've done several 36-hour fasts plus plenty of 24-hour ones. I'm planning to include some days at 1000-1200 calories using only healthy fats such as olive oil, avocado, or limited nuts. From what I've read this approach can help boost metabolism without adding weight. Should the weight loss continue even with those extra calories I'll gradually raise the intake further. The main driver for moving quickly is serious foot pain from metatarsalgia plus severe knee arthritis. Cardio is tough so I focus on weights, swimming, sauna sessions, and walking whenever possible. My relatives can't figure out how I consume far less food than they do yet still weigh 280 pounds. That number matches what I weighed at age 16 and it's stayed roughly constant ever since. I share the view that cycling doses works against progress and changing to a different GLP-1 medication can delay results by months. My goal is reaching 12.5mg and possibly combining it with another compound if necessary.

WryHarbour70archiveMay 8
↳ replying to @AmberHarbour81

Hope things go well for you! I wanted to mention how valuable those swims and walks seem, and it's nice to see you're keeping at them. Considering the ways the body generates fuel for use, basically there are three main paths. To put it briefly, this gentle movement, even if it requires more time, appears ideal at the moment. Sure it lasts longer, yet it's quite effective. Plus, with that reduction in intake, adding a small amount to meals might work. Overall, I believe this approach benefits more than tossing in another compound, which is why it's cool you're prioritizing it.

CopperSparrow10archiveMay 8
↳ replying to @AmberHarbour81

Could this get restored to how things started or does worrying about it not matter much?

AmberHarbour81archiveMay 8
↳ replying to @CopperSparrow10

Research indicates these GLP-1 drugs offer no actual reset benefit. After using them to shed pounds, remaining on the medication while slowly raising the amount appears preferable. My present dose of tirzepatide sits low enough that escalation stays possible, yet the scale keeps moving and I feel excellent eating just eight hundred calories daily now that my carb reliance has faded. This brings nonstop vitality much like a ketogenic approach.

CopperSignal27archiveMay 8

From what I've noticed with how metabolism shifts after weight drops, that adjustment really occurs. Luckily it hasn't forced my needs down to just 800 calories daily, though across 2012 through 2014 and then again from 2022 onward I reached standard body weights. Holding steady there meant sticking to quite restricted food energy levels, with no sign of that changing later on, remaining near 1600 to 1800 calories daily for balance since the end of 2023. Approved options to raise daily burn are basically nonexistent except one class that lets excess sugar pass in urine, around 200 calories worth, yet the typical reaction to lost weight or added output makes most people eat extra and shed only a few kilograms. Another compound now in late human trials can lift expenditure by 100 to 200 calories without causing hunger to rise because it lowers appetite instead. Additional work on milder mitochondrial uncouplers would help, since those might provide an ongoing answer once enough data shows safety, but limited short rodent trials alone don't come close to supporting use in people. When appetite stays under control and the scale keeps moving down, there's little reason to take more. The real difficulty comes down to sustaining the medication and eating pattern over years, since keeping intake lower for the long haul supports both dropping weight and holding onto that progress.

AmberHarbour81archiveMay 8
↳ replying to @WryHarbour70

Throughout my life physical activity hasn't done much for dropping extra pounds no matter how far I pushed myself. I once crossed the continent by bike from one ocean to the other and from the northern border all the way south. I started one glp agonist together with testosterone replacement yet developed a fast heartbeat possibly tied to thicker blood after reaching a higher dose. After that episode I fine tuned my hormone routine and stopped the first medication over worries about its impact on the heart. Following a full month away from those agonists without regaining the weight I'd already shed I've switched to a different one for the past few weeks and lost more pounds from better hunger control which feels great. I then brought in two other peptides after completing a month of another compound five days each week. This morning I woke up cheerful and upbeat perfectly happy with my modest food intake plus a small boost from omega rich choices. My usual pull toward carbohydrates appears gone and cellular cleanup seems to bring extra pep. Right now this mix leaves me feeling unstoppable.

WryHarbour70archiveMay 8
↳ replying to @AmberHarbour81

Without some strange problem showing up in tests, exercise failing to reduce weight can only occur when food intake rises to make up for the extra energy used. This increase often comes from signals the body sends. I can't imagine a situation where calories get expended yet weight stays the same, especially during extended sessions of moderate activity, since without poor eating habits the system depletes sugar stores and draws on fat reserves for fuel. That's basic physiology. Still, an imbalance in hormones or the thyroid might interfere with the process.

AmberHarbour81archiveMay 8
↳ replying to @WryHarbour70

It's a mystery to everyone around including me. My physicians show no interest in digging deeper through better questions or exams. Yet going without any vehicle for seven years while sticking to a plant-based diet and biking fifty miles each day between classes and the job without dropping pounds still seems extraordinary.

CopperSignal27archiveMay 9
↳ replying to @WryHarbour70

That claim doesn't hold up in every case. Solid research has looked into the matter. When food intake stays limited the body resists raising its total daily burn for good reasons tied to surviving periods of scarcity. Movement does consume energy due to basic mechanics but the system can adjust how well it processes those demands during and after activity while also shifting other habits so overall output often stays flat through less motion outside the workout itself. I noticed this pattern myself after going from almost no activity to several hours of daily hikes over rugged terrain without seeing any shift in how fast my weight changed or how much I ate even though the effort should have added up to a noticeable burn. This happened while I was still dropping pounds before my output had reached its lowest level. The same pattern probably shows up less when calories aren't restricted but findings point to a daily ceiling on total energy use where extra movement stops raising the total and the body simply handles things more efficiently instead.

WryHarbour70archiveMay 9
↳ replying to @CopperSignal27

Everyone should stick with whatever approach fits their own situation. Sure, maybe the body gets a bit more efficient with calories over twenty four hours, which could offset the cost of a moderate walk covering a few miles. That logic falls apart though once the total effort climbs much higher. Moving around demands fuel, and making that fuel uses up resources too. No ceiling exists on how much can be used overall, since that would contradict basic biology. Picture covering dozens of miles on foot in one go, and somehow the process just halts partway through.

CopperSignal27archiveMay 9

Studies show that people can burn enormous amounts of energy during brief periods of extreme effort such as multi-day footraces or bike events, sometimes reaching ten thousand calories in a single day. One investigation followed competitors in a cross-country event lasting nearly five months and found daily totals began around six thousand but gradually fell until they leveled off near two and a half times resting metabolism, roughly forty-five hundred calories. That figure matches the highest rate seen late in pregnancy. The slowdown appears tied to how much food can actually be eaten and processed, how quickly tissues recover, and how far certain internal pathways can be pushed. Energy balance still holds because anyone covering a longer distance will use more fuel overall, yet any surplus beyond the sustainable ceiling tends to show up later as extra fatigue that reduces distance covered on following days. The controls operating when food is scarce are not identical, yet the pattern suggests the body can adjust total output across weeks or months. In ordinary dieting the drop is milder, but the same principle seems to apply: different conditions lead the system to adopt different ceilings.

Add your experience

If you have tried it, this topic is still open. Sign in to reply — it takes a minute.

MOTS-C and SS31 · ZyraTrack Community