SS-31 with MOTS-C, not before…

There is no single recommended approach. If someone has had a lifetime of poor habits, SS-31 is often suggested first to support the mitochondria before adding MOTS-C, after which you can run MOTS-C and NAD+. In some cases there is no evidence against using both at the same time if you are already healthy. For most people the sequence is SS-31 first then MOTS-C, and SS-31 can be used again during breaks in the MOTS-C cycle. I would run it every two MOTS-C cycles. My own suggestion is continuous NAD+ from the start, then ten 10 mg vials of SS-31 at 5 mg per day for 20 days, followed by eight 10 mg vials of MOTS-C at 3.3 mg three days per week for eight weeks with a four-week break, repeat that MOTS-C block, then repeat SS-31 during the next break. This cycles SS-31 every two MOTS-C cycles, though it can be adjusted many ways.

I was following the SS-31 and NAD+ first protocol and planned to add MOTS-C later, but then saw a video about running them at the same time and switched. Now I am using both together and the combination is helping with energy at the gym. I am not keen on NAD+ and am thinking of dropping it.

People's regimens contain nothing but invented notions. Research offers no backing at all for combining those compounds or taking them in any order. One substance gained approval for a rare inherited mitochondrial problem yet human studies for other uses mostly disappointed and work halted. Apart from rodent experiments no further development appears active for additional conditions. A related variant completed an initial safety test and may start a follow-up aimed at liver fat accumulation. Human testing stops there for both items. Separate cell and mouse work hints at useful actions but most candidates that look good in those settings never succeed later in people so assuming the same results carry over remains unwise. Nothing in lab or animal data addresses using them jointly or in sequence. Someone once suggested a reason for that particular order which helps market the items but carries no research weight. Each compound produces genuine biological changes. Enough studies on the first one indicate it fails to deliver expected outcomes like easing heart strain though it proved harmless during testing. The second one seems more intriguing since it copies exercise effects in rodents but a lone early human trial focused on liver issues fails to establish safety or matching metabolic gains in people. It might still turn out safe and helpful after many more stages yet that would need a firm willing to fund extensive trials. One company pursues it for liver fat and keeps advancing but those efforts will not confirm value for other purposes.

That explanation really helps and everything fits together for me after this.