MOTS-c with SS-31 dosage and evidence
Written by Aaron CuhaReviewed Sep 2026
The short answer
MOTS-c with SS-31 is two peptides aimed at mitochondria, the energy makers inside cells, sold as one stack.
Evidence grade for MOTS-c with SS-31: Preliminary. The rule: studied in people, but no published study has had people take it. The sum on this page: 1 human study where nobody was given it. A grade counts how much has been done to people, not whether it works.
- People given it
- 0
- Human studies
- 0
- Found nothing
- 0
Dose
No human dose established
No published study on this page has given this compound to people and reported a result.
1 human study where nobody was given it
6 effects reported, 4 unwanted, 2 wanted, by people using it, not a trial
Goal pages: Fat loss and metabolism, Muscle and strength
In plain English
In plain English, from Aaron
This is how I would explain it to a friend. The evidence, with the numbers, is further down the page.
Two mitochondria peptides sold as one stack, mostly to people who are tired all the time. SS-31 is a real drug that went through proper testing. MOTS-c has never been given to a person in a published study.
What people take it for
- Energy and stamina.
- Long term fatigue that nothing has fixed.
- Better workouts.
- Blood sugar control.
What studies in people showed
Nobody has tested the pair. SS-31 went into a large final stage trial in adults with a muscle disease that starts in the cell's power plants. It did not work. The trial did not show a real benefit in the group it studied. Then they went back and looked at smaller groups inside it. People with one specific type of gene fault walked 25.2 metres further in six minutes. The dummy group got 2.0 metres. That just missed the line for being a real result. A smaller group with a particular eye muscle problem walked 37.3 metres further while the dummy group got 8.0 metres worse, and that one did cross the line. Those groups are people with a diagnosed genetic disease, not people who are tired. The authors say the point of that digging was to design the next trial. MOTS-c has no human trial at all. Its work is in fat mice. The senior author on that paper discloses he consults for and owns stock in a mitochondrial peptide company.
What people report
Reports, not study results
The good
- More energy or stamina within a few weeks.
- Better exercise tolerance in people with long standing fatigue.
The bad
- Nothing at all, reported often.
- Sore shot sites.
- Neither has a legal source, and nobody has tested what is actually in seller vials.
- Fatigue moves around a lot by itself, so it is very hard to know what did what.
Where these come from: Peptide forums, fatigue communities and clinic write-ups. People talking, about a symptom that comes and goes on its own.
My bottom line
A failed trial with a promising subgroup is not a drug that works. It is a reason to run another trial. And the other half has never been in a person at all.
An opinion, not a finding. I am a coach, not a doctor.
What it has been measured to do
Measured in people
Goals MOTS-c with SS-31 has been tested for in people, biggest studies first. We count only what the studies on this page say, so the real numbers may be higher.
- Getting strongerno headcount stated · 1 study
What people using it report
Real people telling you what happened to them. Nobody checked it, and the people who post are not a fair sample, so it cannot prove anything works. It is still the best guide on this page to what people actually do with MOTS-c with SS-31, what they expect, and what goes wrong. The full account, including the negative reports, is below.
Animal and lab work, not yet tested in people
Real results, but from animals or cells, not people. What works in a mouse often does not work the same way in a person. Nobody can patent this, so nobody would ever earn back the cost of a study in people. That is usually why there is none. The record on this one is set out below.
- Blood sugar and insulin1 animal or lab study
34 of the 36 indexed goals have no study of any kind behind MOTS-c with SS-31
No study in people, animals or cells on this page reports a result for these. That does not prove MOTS-c with SS-31 does nothing for them. It does mean anything you have heard about MOTS-c with SS-31 and one of these did not come from a study cited here.
Show full evidence
What is MOTS-c with SS-31?
MOTS-c with SS-31 is two peptides aimed at mitochondria, the energy makers inside cells, sold as one stack. SS-31 is elamipretide. It reached a large final-stage study in people with an inherited muscle disease of the mitochondria. Across everyone in that study, it did no better than the dummy. MOTS-c has no study in people at all. Nobody has studied the pair, and sellers do not agree on vial sizes.
This pair is sold to people who feel tired all the time. The two halves have very different evidence, and a single product page flattens that.
SS-31 is elamipretide, a real drug in testing that went through a proper drug programme. MMPOWER-3 was a large final-stage study in adults with primary mitochondrial myopathy, an inherited muscle disease caused by faulty mitochondria. Across that whole mixed group, elamipretide did no better than the dummy. One group picked out before the study, people with faulty genes in the cell's main DNA, did walk further in a six minute walking test. When the researchers went back and sorted people by genetic type afterwards, one group walked 25.2 metres further on the drug, against 2.0 metres on the dummy. That result could easily be chance. A smaller group, people with a condition that slowly weakens the eye muscles, walked 37.3 metres further, against an 8.0 metre drop on the dummy. That one was less likely to be chance. These group results are the reason for a new large study. They are not a result on their own.
That is an unusually honest picture, and it is worth reading closely. The main study failed. The groups that did better are defined by specific genetic diagnoses that almost nobody buying a peptide vial has. And the authors say plainly that most of that sorting was done after the fact.
MOTS-c is a peptide made from the mitochondria's own DNA. It has no study in people. Its research is in mice. In mice made fat on a rich diet, MOTS-c shots lowered three kinds of blood fat and sugar breakdown products. Those same markers run high in fat and diabetic mice. The paper says MOTS-c helped these mice use insulin better, and cut their weight and liver fat. The lead scientist on that work advises and owns shares in a company making mitochondria peptides, and the paper says so.
Vial sizes vary across sellers and no split is standard. So this page does not give a per-unit number. The main point holds anyway. In its studies, elamipretide was given alone, on a set plan, with doctors watching, to people with a diagnosed mitochondria disease. A blended vial bought online is none of those things.
How does MOTS-c with SS-31 work?
SS-31 is a tiny peptide that sticks to a fat called cardiolipin in the inner wall of the mitochondria. It is said to steady that wall and help the cell's energy chain run better. MOTS-c is made from the mitochondria's own DNA. It is said to switch on AMPK, a fuel sensor in cells, and to adjust how the body handles fuel. The two really do work in different ways, which is the better version of the case for a blend. Nobody has tested whether they add up.
What have studies in people found about MOTS-c with SS-31?
One ingredient failed its large final-stage study, with hints of benefit in rare genetic groups. The other has no data in people. The blend has none.
- Elamipretide, MMPOWER-3: across everyone with an inherited mitochondria muscle disease, it did no better than the dummy.
- Elamipretide groups sorted mostly after the fact: in one genetic group, 25.2 metres further on the six minute walk against 2.0 metres on the dummy, which could be chance. In a smaller group with slowly weakening eye muscles, 37.3 metres further against an 8.0 metre drop on the dummy.
- MOTS-c: no study in people of any kind. The evidence is in mice made fat on a rich diet.
- The blend: no published study and no listed trial.
What this does not tell you: The elamipretide group results apply to people with specific, diagnosed genetic mitochondria disorders. Those are not the people buying a tiredness stack. Results from sorting groups after the fact can only suggest ideas to test. The authors say so.
What do people who took MOTS-c with SS-31 report?
This is what real people say happened to them, good and bad. Nobody measured it. A report cannot tell a real effect from the lift people get just from expecting it to work, from a diet or training change made at the same time, or from what was really in the vial. We still put it near the top. It is the next best thing to a study in people: what happens when real people use it, including what goes wrong.
- More energy or stamina within a few weeks. This is the main reason people buy it.
- Handling exercise better, mostly in people who have been tired for a long time.
- Nothing at all. This comes up often.
- Reactions where the shot goes in.
- Not being sure what is in the vial, since neither ingredient has a licensed source and nobody has published an outside test of sellers' material.
Sources: Peptide forums including r/peptides, chronic fatigue communities and clinic write-ups. Uncontrolled self-reports in a symptom domain that fluctuates substantially on its own.
The state of the research
This blend tests how a reader handles a failed study with bright spots in small groups. The right reading is this. Elamipretide did not work in the people it was tested in. A group defined by its genes might respond. And a new study was planned to find out. That is not the same as a drug that works. It is certainly not evidence for someone with unexplained tiredness and no mitochondria diagnosis.
MOTS-c is at an earlier stage than the sales copy suggests. It is an interesting molecule with mouse research, and a stated money interest behind part of that research. No person has been given it in a published study.
One real point in this pair's favour. Unlike many blends, the two ingredients really do work in different ways. That is a better starting point than two drugs on one switch. It is still a starting point, not a finding.
The evidence, in charts
Fig. 1a · how many people
1study in people cited, but none says how many people took part
number of people not stated
We do not draw a total, because none of the studies in people on this page gives one. Read the sources below for what each study measured.
We read the number of people from the source lines on this page. Where a line gives no number, we count nothing for it. We do not guess.
Fig. 1b · evidence mix
1 of 3 sources here is a study in people. The rest are not.
- Study in people · done in people133%
- Animal study · done in animals133%
- Review of studies · sums up other studies133%
Counted from the list of sources on this page. It counts only what we cite, so there may be more studies out there. A review counts once, however many studies it sums up.
Fig. 2 · evidence over time
The studies cover 3 different years, 2019 to 2026, counted from the list of sources on this page.
Fig. 3 · legal status at a glance
US
Not approved
UK
Not approved
AU
Not approved
CA
Not approved
Not approved in any of the four countries shown. This is what the law says, not a verdict on the science. See Legal status below for the full text and any notes.
Fig. 4 · how much does what
Nobody has tested different amounts in people
This chart would show how the effect changes as the amount goes up. For this compound, nobody has measured that in people. So we leave it empty. We will not borrow an animal chart and pretend it works the same in people.
Fig. 5 · what the molecule is
- Kind of compound
- Blend
- Molecule weight
- Not on file
- Half-life
- Stated in words, not a numbersee the exact wording below
- Chain length
- None on file
Half-life as stated on file: Not defined for the blend. No pharmacokinetic study of the combination exists and neither component has an established dosing interval outside a trial protocol.
No amino acid sequence is on file for MOTS-c with SS-31, which is expected: a blend is not built from amino acids.
Fig. 6 · what is in the vial
We cannot show how much of each is in this blend
Sellers do not agree on a vial size for MOTS-c with SS-31, so nobody outside can know how much of each ingredient is in it. Splitting the bar evenly would make up the very number this page is here to question.
- MOTS-cLimited. People have taken it in a published study, but fewer than 100 of them. 1 completed trial, 30 people given it.amount not stated
- SS-31 (elamipretide)Moderate. At least one finished study in people, and at least 100 people who took it. 5 completed trials, 487 people given it.amount not stated
Ingredient list from the product labels we have. Amounts are what the label says is in the vial, never a dose.
The studies we cite
- Study in people2024Genotype-specific effects of elamipretide in patients with primary mitochondrial myopathy: a post hoc analysis of the MMPOWER-3 trial
The main study of elamipretide failed. This is a later second look at its data, hunting for a group that did better. Across all the adults with an inherited mitochondria muscle disease, the drug showed no clear benefit. Sorted by genetic type afterwards, one type walked about 25 metres further in six minutes than people on the dummy. A smaller type walked about 37 metres further. Sorting after the fact cannot prove anything. It was meant to shape the next study.
As previously published, MMPOWER-3 did not demonstrate a significant benefit of elamipretide in a genotypically diverse adult population with primary mitochondrial myopathy. In post hoc analysis the mitochondrial DNA replisome cohort improved 25.2 plus or minus 8.7 metres on the six-minute walk test against 2.0 plus or minus 8.6 metres on placebo at p = 0.06, and the subset with chronic progressive external ophthalmoplegia improved 37.3 plus or minus 9.5 metres against a 8.0 metre decline at p = 0.0024. These analyses were designed to inform a follow-up phase 3 trial.
- Review of studies2026NAD⁺ supplementation for anti-aging and wellness: A PRISMA-guided systematic review of preclinical and clinical evidence
This review gathers the animal and human evidence on NAD and mitochondria supplements. It is useful here as a wider view of how often promising mitochondria findings in animals have turned into measured results in people.
A systematic review of the mitochondrial and NAD supplementation field across preclinical and clinical evidence, useful here as the broader context for how often mechanistic mitochondrial findings in animals have translated into measured human outcomes.
- Animal study2019The mitochondrial-derived peptide MOTS-c is a regulator of plasma metabolites and enhances insulin sensitivity
In mice made fat on a rich diet, MOTS-c shots lowered three kinds of fat and fuel breakdown products in the blood. These same markers run high in fat and diabetic mice. The paper says MOTS-c helped these mice use insulin better and burn more fat, so less was stored. This was mice only. The lead scientist advises and owns shares in a company making mitochondria peptides, and the paper says so.
In diet-induced obese mice, MOTS-c injection reduced three plasma metabolite pathways that are upregulated in obesity and type 2 diabetes models: sphingolipid, monoacylglycerol and dicarboxylate metabolism. The paper describes MOTS-c as improving insulin sensitivity and increasing beta oxidation to prevent fat accumulation in these mice. Mice only. The senior author discloses being a consultant and stockholder in a company developing mitochondrial peptides.
Where to buy MOTS-c with SS-31
2 sellers list MOTS-c with SS-31 in our latest read. They are ranked by trust score, then by archive rating, then by certificate tier, then by the lowest price per milligram. Archive evidence is counted before source-backed. Each path is out of 4, and the two are not added. A higher price does not raise the score. The letter is the certificate chip. 0 of them have a published certificate that names MOTS-c with SS-31.
Some seller links may pay this site when you buy through them. A payment never changes a seller's tier or rank, and no seller has a say in any page.
| Seller | Trust score | Vial sizes | From, per mg | Certificate for MOTS-c with SS-31 | Seller link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peptide Plugs | 65 FairSource-backed 4 of 4. Archive evidence 2 of 4.A | 50 mg | $2.10 | None found for MOTS-c with SS-31 | View |
| PeptidePlugs | 65 FairSource-backed 4 of 4. Archive evidence 2 of 4.A | 50 mg | $2.10 | None found for MOTS-c with SS-31 | View |
- LC Lab-confirmed: the issuing laboratory echoed this certificate back
- A Current certificate, independent laboratory named, laboratory not yet checked
- B Certificate published, but no laboratory link, older than a year, or the laboratory did not recognise the published lookup
- C No certificate could be read
Every listing and vial size for MOTS-c with SS-31 · How the trust score is counted
Sellers named on the price pages are ranked by certificate tier, then price, and any affiliate income is disclosed there. Naming a seller is not a recommendation to buy or use anything.
Common questions
Has MOTS-c with SS-31 been tested in people?
Not in a completed trial cited here. 1 human study where nobody was given it. MOTS-c with SS-31 is two peptides aimed at mitochondria, the energy makers inside cells, sold as one stack.
What is the MOTS-c with SS-31 dosage?
No human dose established. No published study on this page has given this compound to people and reported a result. 1 human study where nobody was given it
Is MOTS-c with SS-31 FDA-approved?
Neither is approved. Elamipretide has been through final-stage studies without an approval for this use. MOTS-c has never started human testing as a drug.
Did the SS-31 trial work?
The large final-stage study in people with an inherited mitochondria muscle disease found no benefit across everyone. One group defined by its genes walked further in a six minute walking test, mostly in a second look done after the fact. A new study was planned around that.
Is there any human data for MOTS-c?
None. Its research is in mice, including a study of blood fat and fuel markers in mice made fat on a rich diet.
Do the two work by different mechanisms?
Yes, and that is the strongest point about this pair. One sticks to a fat called cardiolipin in the inner wall of the mitochondria. The other is said to switch on AMPK, a fuel sensor in cells. Nobody has tested whether they add up.
What is the vial size?
There is no standard. Sellers sell different splits, which is why this page does not give a per-unit number.
Would this help my fatigue?
The one study behind this pair was in people with a diagnosed inherited mitochondria muscle disease, and it failed its main test. Neither ingredient has been studied in unexplained tiredness.