BPC-157, TB-500, and growth hormone secretagogues are everywhere. Here's what the research supports, what it doesn't, and how to know if they're actually working for you.

Key Points

Peptides are short amino acid chains that act as signaling molecules. They are not steroids, and most are not hormones, though some mimic hormonal signaling. The distinction is biochemical, not a safety guarantee.
BPC-157 and TB-500 show promising healing and recovery effects in animal models, but rigorous human clinical trials are almost entirely absent.
Growth hormone secretagogues (ipamorelin, CJC-1295, sermorelin, tesamorelin) stimulate your body's own growth hormone production rather than introducing exogenous GH. Tesamorelin is the only one with current FDA approval.
The regulatory landscape is shifting fast. FDA policy changes in 2025 have restricted compounding pharmacy access to many popular peptides, affecting availability across the board.
If you use peptides, it's a good idea to track the impact with objective data (e1RM trends, InBody segmental scans, session-to-session recovery metrics). Subjective "I feel better" is not evidence, especially when you are spending $200-400 per month.

Introduction

Not too long ago, nobody asked me about peptides. Now it comes up at least once a week with clients.

The peptide conversation has moved from niche biohacker forums to mainstream client questions, and the information landscape is not helping anyone make good decisions. On one side, you have telehealth clinics breathlessly promoting peptides as the next frontier in recovery and performance. On the other, you have blanket dismissals from people who have not actually looked at the research. Neither extreme is useful if you are trying to make an informed decision about your own body.

At Verro, we do not prescribe peptides...we're trainers and physical therapists, and that is a conversation you should have between yourself and a physician. What we can do is help you understand the evidence, think critically about the claims, and if you do decide to use them, track whether they are actually making a measurable difference in your training.

This post covers the basics: what peptides are, how the most popular ones work, what the research actually shows for each (with honest grading), where people are getting them, the risks, and how to use real training data to evaluate whether they are doing anything for you.

What Are Peptides? (And What They Are Not)

Peptides are short chains of amino acids, typically between 2 and 50 amino acids long (smaller than proteins but larger than individual amino acids). Your body naturally produces hundreds of peptides that act as signaling molecules, telling various systems what to do. Insulin, for example, is a peptide hormone. So is oxytocin.

The peptides people are using for performance and recovery are either synthetic versions of naturally occurring peptides or entirely novel sequences designed to trigger specific biological cascades. They work by binding to receptors and initiating downstream signaling, not by directly introducing hormones into your system (Fosgerau & Hoffmann, 2015).

This distinction from anabolic steroids matters. Steroids are synthetic derivatives of testosterone that directly alter hormone levels and activate androgen receptors throughout the body. The effects are broad, powerful, and come with well-documented side effects. Peptides are more targeted, they signal specific pathways rather than flooding the system.

The distinction from exogenous growth hormone also matters. When someone injects pharmaceutical GH, they are introducing a flat, sustained elevation of growth hormone that bypasses the body's natural pulsatile release pattern and feedback loops. Growth hormone secretagogues, by contrast, stimulate your pituitary gland to release its own GH in pulses... theoretically preserving the body's feedback mechanisms.

For this post, we are covering two categories: healing and recovery peptides (BPC-157 and TB-500) and growth hormone secretagogues (ipamorelin, CJC-1295, sermorelin, and tesamorelin). We are not covering GLP-1 receptor agonists like semaglutide or tirzepatide — those are FDA-approved medications for specific medical conditions and deserve their own discussion.

Key Distinction
Peptides are not steroids. They do not directly introduce hormones into your system. But "not steroids" does not mean "harmless" or "well-studied." The distinction is biochemical, not a safety guarantee.

How People Are Getting Peptides

The access landscape for peptides has shifted dramatically in the past two years, and understanding it matters for both safety and availability.

Telehealth peptide clinics exploded in popularity from 2022-2024. The model is straightforward: virtual consultation with a provider, a prescription sent to a compounding pharmacy, and the peptides shipped to your door. The quality of these clinics varies enormously. Some have board-certified endocrinologists reviewing cases, others are essentially prescription mills with minimal oversight.

Compounding pharmacies are where most prescribed peptides are actually produced. There are two categories: 503A pharmacies compound individual prescriptions for specific patients, and 503B outsourcing facilities manufacture in larger batches. The 503B facilities are subject to more FDA oversight, including current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) requirements. This distinction matters for quality assurance.

Grey market suppliers sell peptides labeled "for research purposes only — not for human consumption." These products have no physician oversight, no quality testing requirements, and no guarantee of purity or accurate dosing. This is the highest-risk access route.

The regulatory shift: In 2025, the FDA began enforcing revised policies on bulk drug substance compounding that significantly restrict which peptides compounding pharmacies can produce. Many therapeutic peptides have been reclassified from small-molecule drugs to biologics under the Biologics Transition Framework, which effectively prohibits their compounding. BPC-157, for example, has been placed on the FDA's "difficult to compound" list. The practical effect is that several peptides that were widely available through telehealth clinics as recently as 2024 are now much harder to obtain legally (FDA, 2025).

Healing Peptides: BPC-157 and TB-500

BPC-157

Body Protection Compound-157 is a synthetic 15-amino-acid peptide derived from a protein found in human gastric juice. It was first isolated by Dr. Predrag Sikiric's research group at the University of Zagreb in the 1990s and has been the subject of extensive preclinical research since then.

The proposed mechanisms of action include upregulation of growth factor expression, specifically vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), and fibroblast growth factor (FGF), as well as nitric oxide system modulation and anti-inflammatory pathways (Seiwerth et al., 2018). In simpler terms, BPC-157 appears to promote blood vessel formation, cell migration, and tissue repair through multiple pathways simultaneously.

The preclinical data is genuinely impressive. Animal studies have demonstrated accelerated healing of tendons, ligaments, muscle tissue, bone, and gut lining. Chang et al. (2011) showed that BPC-157 significantly accelerated tendon fibroblast outgrowth and cell migration in a dose-dependent manner. These are the studies that generated the excitement.

TB-500

TB-500 is a synthetic fragment of Thymosin Beta-4, a naturally occurring 43-amino-acid peptide involved in cell migration, angiogenesis (new blood vessel formation), and wound healing. Thymosin Beta-4 is one of the most abundant intracellular peptides in mammalian cells. It is not exotic biochemistry.

The proposed mechanism works differently from BPC-157. Thymosin Beta-4 acts primarily through actin sequestration, which facilitates cellular repair and migration, combined with anti-inflammatory signaling and stem cell mobilization (Goldstein et al., 2012). Malinin et al. (1999) demonstrated that Thymosin Beta-4 accelerated wound reepithelialization by 42% at 4 days and 61% at 7 days compared to saline in preclinical models.

Why People Stack Them

Some practitioners use BPC-157 and TB-500 together on the theory that the mechanisms are complementary — BPC-157 works primarily through growth factor upregulation while TB-500 works through cellular migration and actin-mediated repair. This combination has not been studied in any controlled setting.

Both BPC-157 and TB-500 have plausible biological mechanisms. The question is not whether they could work — it is whether the animal model results translate to humans at the doses and administration routes people are actually using. Most animal studies use direct injection into the injury site, which is fundamentally different from the subcutaneous injection most people self-administer.

GH Secretagogues: How They Work

To understand growth hormone secretagogues, you need a basic picture of how the GH axis works. Your hypothalamus releases Growth Hormone-Releasing Hormone (GHRH), which signals your pituitary gland to release growth hormone. GH then acts on tissues directly and also stimulates the liver to produce Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1), which drives many of the downstream effects people are after — tissue repair, body composition changes, and recovery.

GH secretagogues work at different points in this axis:

GHRH analogs — CJC-1295, sermorelin, and tesamorelin — mimic GHRH and stimulate the pituitary to release GH. CJC-1295 uses a Drug Affinity Complex (DAC) that binds to albumin in the blood, extending its half-life significantly. Sermorelin was previously FDA-approved for GH deficiency in children. Tesamorelin is currently FDA-approved for HIV-associated lipodystrophy.

Ghrelin mimetics — ipamorelin — work through a different pathway. Ipamorelin mimics the hunger hormone ghrelin at the GH secretagogue receptor (GHSR), stimulating GH release. What makes ipamorelin notable is its selectivity: unlike earlier secretagogues like GHRP-6, it does not significantly raise cortisol or prolactin levels (Raun et al., 1998). This selectivity is why it became the most popular GH secretagogue in the wellness space.

The appeal of secretagogues over exogenous GH is that they stimulate pulsatile GH release — mimicking your body's natural rhythm of GH secretion rather than creating a flat, elevated GH level. This theoretically preserves the body's feedback mechanisms and may carry a more favorable side effect profile. Whether this theoretical advantage holds up in practice is an open question.

The Evidence: Peptide by Peptide

This is where intellectual honesty matters most. The evidence quality varies enormously across these compounds, and conflating "mechanistically plausible" with "clinically proven" is the single most common error in peptide discourse.

BPC-157

A 2025 systematic review by Vasireddi et al. in HSS Journal identified 544 initial articles on BPC-157 for musculoskeletal applications and included 36 in the final analysis. Of those 36 studies, 35 were preclinical (animal models). The single human study was a 12-person case series with chronic knee pain — no control group, no blinding, no standardized outcome measures. Seven of 12 patients reported pain relief lasting more than 6 months.

There is an additional concern that deserves mention: over 80% of all BPC-157 publications on PubMed are linked to Sikiric's research group at the University of Zagreb. Sikiric holds patents through Diagen and PharmaCotherapia for a "special stable version" of BPC-157 — conflicts of interest that have not been consistently disclosed in the published literature. This does not invalidate the research, but independent replication is sparse.

Evidence grade: Strong preclinical, essentially absent clinical.

TB-500 / Thymosin Beta-4

Thymosin Beta-4 (the parent molecule) has more human data than BPC-157, though still limited. Phase II clinical trials have been conducted in stasis ulcers and pressure ulcers, showing accelerated healing by approximately one month in patients who healed. A randomized, placebo-controlled Phase II trial in dry eye (72 subjects) showed a 27% reduction in discomfort scores with an excellent safety profile and no adverse events (Sosne et al., 2015).

Important caveat: most human data is on the full Thymosin Beta-4 molecule, not TB-500 (the synthetic fragment). Whether the fragment replicates the parent compound's effects is assumed but not rigorously established.

Evidence grade: Moderate preclinical, limited but real human data (mostly on parent compound).

Ipamorelin

Human pharmacokinetic studies confirm that ipamorelin selectively stimulates GH release without significantly elevating cortisol or prolactin — the selectivity claims are legitimate (Raun et al., 1998). However, there are no long-term clinical outcome studies in healthy adults examining body composition, recovery, or performance endpoints.

Evidence grade: Good mechanistic and pharmacokinetic data, no clinical outcome data for performance use.

CJC-1295

Teichman et al. (2006) demonstrated in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that a single injection of CJC-1295 increased GH levels 2-10 fold for 6+ days and IGF-1 levels 1.5-3 fold for 9-11 days, with cumulative effects after multiple doses. The pharmacokinetics are well-characterized.

However, one clinical trial participant died during development, leading to the termination of the formal clinical program as a precautionary measure. The cause was not definitively attributed to CJC-1295, but the program was not restarted.

Evidence grade: Demonstrated GH elevation in humans, significant safety concern from development history.

Sermorelin

Sermorelin has the best safety track record of any GH secretagogue because it was previously FDA-approved (as Geref) for diagnosing and treating GH deficiency in children. It was discontinued commercially for business reasons, not safety concerns. Vittone et al. (1997) studied GHRH analogs in healthy elderly men and found significant increases in nocturnal GH secretion and serum IGF-1 (Walker, 2006).

Evidence grade: Best safety record in class (former FDA approval), moderate outcome data.

Tesamorelin

Tesamorelin (marketed as Egrifta) is currently FDA-approved — the only peptide in this discussion with active regulatory validation. Phase III randomized controlled trials (LIPO-010 and CTR-1011) involving 816 HIV-infected adults demonstrated a 19.6% and 11.7% reduction in visceral adipose tissue respectively (Falutz et al., 2007). The evidence for its approved indication is strong.

For off-label performance or body composition use in healthy adults, the data is limited — but it has the most robust safety and efficacy dataset of any GH secretagogue.

Evidence grade: Strong clinical data for approved indication, limited data for off-label use.

Peptide	Category	FDA Status	Human Trials	Evidence Quality	Primary Use Case
BPC-157	Healing	Not approved; on "difficult to compound" list	1 case series (12 patients, no control)	Strong animal, no human trials	Tendon/muscle/gut healing
TB-500	Healing	Not approved	Phase II (wound healing, dry eye — parent compound)	Moderate animal, limited human	Tissue repair, wound healing
Ipamorelin	GH Secretagogue	Not approved	Pharmacokinetic studies only	Good mechanistic, no outcome data	GH optimization, body composition
CJC-1295	GH Secretagogue	Not approved	Short-term PK studies; program halted after trial death	Demonstrated GH elevation, safety concerns	GH optimization, body composition
Sermorelin	GH Secretagogue	Previously FDA-approved (discontinued)	Yes — moderate clinical data	Best safety record in class	GH optimization, anti-aging
Tesamorelin	GH Secretagogue	FDA-approved (Egrifta)	Phase III RCTs (816 patients)	Strong for approved indication	Visceral fat reduction

Risks and Side Effects

Growth hormone secretagogues come with the side effects you would expect from elevated GH: water retention, joint pain, carpal tunnel-like symptoms, and potential insulin resistance with prolonged use. The insulin sensitivity concern is real — GH is a counter-regulatory hormone to insulin, and chronically elevated GH or IGF-1 can impair glucose metabolism.

There is also a theoretical long-term concern worth mentioning honestly. Epidemiological studies have found an association between chronically elevated IGF-1 levels and increased cancer risk (Renehan et al., 2004). This is observational, not causal — the studies cannot establish that higher IGF-1 causes cancer, only that the two are statistically associated. But the association exists, and anyone considering long-term GH secretagogue use should be aware of it and discuss it with their physician.

BPC-157 and TB-500 present a different kind of risk: the absence of safety data. Anecdotal reports include injection site reactions, joint pain, anxiety, palpitations, and insomnia — but these have not been confirmed in formal trials because formal trials barely exist. A 2025 pilot study on intravenous BPC-157 found no measurable effects on cardiac, hepatic, renal, or thyroid biomarkers — which is reassuring but represents a single study with limited sample size.

The more concerning theoretical risk is that both BPC-157 and TB-500 promote angiogenesis — the formation of new blood vessels. This is the mechanism that helps heal injuries. But if you have an undiagnosed tumor, promoting blood vessel growth could theoretically support tumor vascularization. This is speculative, but it is a mechanistically plausible concern that has not been studied.

Finally, quality and purity from unregulated sources is a genuine safety issue. Research on ergo-nutritional supplements has found contamination rates between 12-58% with substances not listed on the label. If you cannot verify what is in the vial, you are adding an uncontrolled variable to an already uncertain equation.

Honest Assessment
The most honest thing anyone can say about long-term peptide safety is: we do not know. The absence of reported serious adverse events in short-term use is reassuring, but it is not the same as a clean bill of health. Long-term human safety data simply does not exist for most of these compounds.

When Peptides Might Make Sense (and When They Definitely Do Not)

If you are considering peptides, context matters enormously. Here is how I think about it as a coach.

Reasonable scenario: You have optimized your training, nutrition, sleep, and stress management. You have a specific, persistent injury or recovery limitation that is not responding to conventional approaches. You are working with a knowledgeable physician who will monitor bloodwork and adjust dosing. You have baseline training data to compare against. In this context, peptides are a potential tool at the end of a long list of fundamentals.

Unreasonable scenario: You are using peptides as a substitute for consistent training, adequate protein intake, or seven hours of sleep. You are self-administering from a grey market supplier without medical oversight. You started peptides before establishing any baseline metrics. In this context, you are spending money on a shortcut that probably is not working, and you have no way to verify either way.

The hierarchy is not complicated: sleep > nutrition > training consistency > stress management > ... > peptides. If the first four are not optimized, peptides are rearranging deck chairs. I have clients who have used peptides. Some report noticeable improvements in recovery. Some notice nothing. The ones who benefit most are the ones who already had everything else dialed in. Peptides did not replace the fundamentals — they added a marginal edge on top of a solid foundation.

Tracking the Impact With Real Data

Here is where this stops being abstract and starts being practical. If you are going to use peptides, you need to actually know whether they are working. And "I feel like I am recovering faster" is not data.

This is not cynicism — it is realism. Placebo effects are real, expectation bias is powerful, and expensive interventions tend to produce stronger placebo responses. If you are paying $300 per month for something, your brain wants it to work. The only antidote is objective measurement.

e1RM tracking: If peptides are genuinely improving your recovery, it should show up in your estimated one-rep max trends. Faster e1RM progression, fewer stalls, better performance at equivalent RPEs. At Verro, we track e1RM across every program — comparing the slope of your progression during peptide use versus before gives you a direct, quantifiable signal. This is the same methodology we use to evaluate whether any programming change is working.

InBody segmental scans: If GH secretagogues are improving body composition, segmental lean mass should increase and/or segmental fat mass should decrease. Bracket your peptide use with InBody scans the same way we bracket training programs — a before scan and an after scan that bound a known period. As we discussed in our post on Tracking Hypertrophy Where It Actually Happens, segmental data is far more informative than total body weight or even total lean mass.

Session recovery indicators: Training session quality on back-to-back days. Are you maintaining higher RPEs with less perceived fatigue? Is your performance less variable session-to-session? Are you able to handle higher training volumes without the same fatigue accumulation? These are observable in your workout logs.

The Verro Approach
We track everything — e1RM trends, InBody segmental lean mass, volume progression, fatigue indicators. If peptides are doing something measurable, the data will show it. If three months of use produces no measurable change in your training data or body composition, you have your answer — and you just saved yourself several thousand dollars per year.

If you are going to spend $200-400 per month on peptides, spend the five minutes to establish baseline metrics first. Without a baseline, you have no way to know if they are working. You are just paying for a feeling.

Limitations and What We Do Not Know

Intellectual honesty requires stating clearly what we do not know — which, in the case of peptides for performance, is a lot.

Most BPC-157 research comes from a single lab group that holds patents on the compound. Independent replication is limited. This does not mean the findings are wrong, but it means the evidence base is narrower than the volume of publications suggests.

Animal-to-human translation is unreliable, particularly for dose, route of administration, and injury-specific effects. Rat tendons are not human tendons. Subcutaneous injection is not direct injection into an injury site. The dose-to-bodyweight ratios used in animal studies often do not scale linearly to humans.

GH secretagogue studies are mostly short-term pharmacokinetic studies showing that yes, these compounds do raise GH and IGF-1 levels. What they do not show is whether that elevation translates to meaningful body composition changes, performance improvements, or recovery benefits in healthy, trained adults over clinically relevant timeframes.

The performance and recovery context is almost entirely unstudied. There are no randomized controlled trials examining peptide use in trained individuals for training-specific outcomes like strength progression, hypertrophy, or injury recovery time. The evidence pyramid for peptides in performance contexts sits near the bottom — mostly mechanistic reasoning, animal models, and anecdotal reports. That does not mean they do not work. It means we do not have strong evidence that they do.

Finally, publication bias is real, and conflict of interest is pervasive. Negative results are less likely to be published. Much of the popular peptide information comes from clinics and providers who sell them. Consider the source when evaluating claims.

Practical Takeaways

Understand what peptides are and are not. They are signaling molecules, not steroids. But "not steroids" does not equal "safe" or "proven." Calibrate your expectations to the actual evidence, not the marketing.
Optimize the fundamentals first. Sleep, nutrition, training consistency, and stress management deliver far more than any peptide. If those are not dialed in, peptides are an expensive distraction.
Work with a physician if you decide to use peptides. Telehealth peptide clinics vary enormously in quality. Seek a provider who will monitor bloodwork (IGF-1, fasting glucose, insulin) and adjust dosing based on your response — not one who writes the same prescription for everyone.
Demand quality sourcing. If you cannot verify the purity and origin of what you are injecting, do not inject it. 503B outsourcing facilities with FDA oversight represent the minimum acceptable standard.
Establish baselines before starting. Get an InBody scan, document your current e1RM trends across key lifts, and track your session recovery metrics. Without a before picture, you cannot evaluate the after.
Track objectively, not subjectively. "I feel better" is not evidence. Rising e1RM trends, improving segmental lean mass, and better session-to-session recovery at equivalent training volumes are evidence.
Reassess after three months. If three months of peptide use shows no measurable change in your training data or body composition, the honest conclusion is that they are not doing much for you. Do not let sunk cost bias keep you spending.

References

Citation	Study Type	Supports This Claim
Vasireddi, N., et al. (2025). Emerging use of BPC-157 in orthopaedic sports medicine: a systematic review. HSS Journal. doi:10.1177/15563316251355551	Systematic review	36 studies, 35 preclinical — virtually no human clinical evidence
Fosgerau, K. & Hoffmann, T. (2015). Peptide therapeutics: current status and future directions. Drug Discovery Today, 20(1), 122-128.	Review	Peptides as signaling molecules — mechanism and therapeutic landscape
Seiwerth, S., et al. (2018). BPC 157 and standard angiogenic growth factors. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 24(18), 1972-1989.	Preclinical review	BPC-157 mechanism: VEGF, EGF, FGF upregulation
Chang, C.H., et al. (2011). BPC 157 enhances the growth of tendon fibroblasts. Journal of Applied Physiology, 110(3), 774-780.	Preclinical	Dose-dependent tendon fibroblast outgrowth and migration
Goldstein, A.L., et al. (2012). Thymosin beta-4: a multi-functional regenerative peptide. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, 12(1), 37-51.	Review	TB-4/TB-500 mechanism: actin sequestration, cell migration, angiogenesis
Malinin, G.I., et al. (1999). Thymosin beta-4 accelerates wound healing. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 113(3), 364-368.	Preclinical	42-61% faster wound reepithelialization vs. saline
Sosne, G., et al. (2015). Thymosin beta 4 and corneal wound healing. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1360(1), 44-56.	Phase II RCT	27% reduction in dry eye discomfort; no adverse events
Raun, K., et al. (1998). Ipamorelin, the first selective growth hormone secretagogue. European Journal of Endocrinology, 139(5), 552-561.	Pharmacokinetic	Ipamorelin selectively raises GH without cortisol/prolactin elevation
Teichman, S.L., et al. (2006). Prolonged stimulation of GH and IGF-I by CJC-1295. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 91(3), 799-805.	RCT (double-blind)	CJC-1295: 2-10x GH elevation for 6+ days per injection
Falutz, J., et al. (2007). Metabolic effects of a growth hormone-releasing factor in patients with HIV. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(23), 2359-2370.	Phase III RCT	Tesamorelin: 19.6% visceral fat reduction — FDA approval basis
Walker, R.F. (2006). Sermorelin: a better approach to management of adult-onset growth hormone insufficiency? Clinical Interventions in Aging, 1(4), 307-308.	Clinical review	Sermorelin safety track record and clinical rationale
Renehan, A.G., et al. (2004). Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF binding protein-3, and cancer risk. The Lancet, 363(9418), 1346-1353.	Meta-analysis (observational)	Association between elevated IGF-1 and cancer risk — observational, not causal
Ishida, J., et al. (2020). Growth hormone secretagogues: history, mechanism of action, and clinical development. JCSM Rapid Communications, 3(1), 25-37.	Review	Comprehensive GH secretagogue mechanism and development overview
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2025). Interim policy on compounding using bulk drug substances. FDA.gov.	Regulatory	2025 policy restricting compounding pharmacy peptide access

DISCLAIMER

This article is for educational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose, treat, or serve as medical advice regarding peptide use, hormone optimization, or any related therapeutic intervention. The compounds discussed in this article include both FDA-approved medications and unapproved research chemicals — their inclusion here does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.

Peptide therapies carry real risks, including unknown long-term safety profiles, contamination from unregulated sources, and potential interactions with existing medications or medical conditions. The regulatory landscape around compounding pharmacies and peptide access is actively evolving, and legal availability may change.

Always consult with a qualified physician or endocrinologist before considering any peptide, growth hormone secretagogue, or related compound. Self-administration of injectable or oral peptides without medical supervision is strongly discouraged.

At Verro, we believe in evidence-based decision-making — which means being transparent about what the research actually supports and where the gaps are. We present this information so you can have informed conversations with your healthcare provider, not as a substitute for their guidance.