The finder
Pick what you want to change. See who actually measured it.
Every other tool like this gives you a compound and a match score. Those scores are not measured. Ours does not exist. What you get instead is what was actually measured and where: trials in people first with the participant count, then the animal and cell work kept separate, then what people using it report, and the trials that found nothing, counted rather than dropped.
82 of the 444 compounds here have never been through a trial in people. That is worth knowing and it is not a verdict: a molecule nobody can patent has no sponsor to pay for a trial, so a thin human record is usually a fact about money rather than about the compound. Where that is the case, this says so and shows you what does exist.
What are you trying to change?
Pick as many as you like. The number on each one is how many people it has been measured in across the whole archive, so you can see where the evidence is before you choose.
Or start from the compounds
Somebody handed you a stack. What is actually known about it?
Add what you are looking at and you get every outcome those compounds have been measured for in people, and then the longer list of the ones they have not.
Thyroid
Does it affect thyroid function?
Thyroid hormone levels, usually reported as a safety measure rather than a goal.
9,491 people · 5 human studies · 5 compounds
- 9,463 people1 study
9,463 adults aged 40 and over with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, 610 sites, 28 countries, randomised 1:1 to albiglutide 30 to 50 mg weekly or placebo, median follow-up 1.6 years. Primary composite (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke): 338 of 4,731 (7 percent) against 428 of 4,732 (9...
Lancet, 2018 · 9,463 people
- 23 people1 study1 found nothing
found nothing23 women randomised double-blind to 250 mg of a 10 percent Coleus forskohlii extract twice daily (n equals 7) or placebo (n equals 12) for 12 weeks. No significant differences in fat mass, fat-free mass or body fat percentage. Non-significant trends toward mitigating gains in body mass (p equals 0.10) and scanned mass...
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2005 · 23 people
- 3 people1 study
Three children with congenital leptin deficiency treated with daily subcutaneous recombinant human leptin for up to 4 years: sustained reductions in appetite, fat mass, hyperinsulinaemia and hyperlipidaemia, rapid rise in thyroid hormones, appropriately timed puberty, and reversal of reduced CD4 T cell numbers and...
Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2002 · 3 people
- 2 people1 study1 found nothing
found nothingTwo adults received 10 mg intravenously on day 1 and 20 mg on day 2. No adverse effects were reported and cardiac, liver, kidney, thyroid and glucose laboratory values did not change meaningfully. Two subjects cannot characterise safety.
Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 2025 · 2 people
- no headcount stated1 study1 found nothing
found nothingThe first human study. Galanin infused for 60 minutes into healthy volunteers at 7.8 pmol/kg per minute (n=4) or 33.2 pmol/kg per minute (n=6). Plasma growth hormone rose from 2.8 to a mean peak of 48.5 mU/L at the high dose and from 2.5 to 23.5 mU/L at the low dose; prolactin rose from 176 to 274 mU/L. No change in...
The Lancet, 1986 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated0 studies
How this is counted
Human studies only. Animal and test-tube work never enters this ranking, because the question you asked was about a person.
A compound is listed for an outcome only when a citation on its own page states that outcome and reports a result for it. Naming it is not enough: a paper that measures testosterone and reports a result about something else does not count as testosterone evidence, which is a mistake this tool made on its first run and no longer makes.
People counts are read out of the study lines themselves and are deliberate undercounts. Where a line states no number, the study still counts as a study and adds nothing to the headcount. Counts are never added across compounds, because the same person can appear in more than one trial.
Ranking is by people measured. That is a fact about the evidence, not a judgement about the compound, and it is the only ordering this site will defend. A compound at the top of a list is the most studied, which is not the same as the best.
Nothing here is advice, and nothing here is a recommendation to take anything.