Final verdict
I am closing Vesugen as mixed. The visible effect was real enough to count in this personal ledger. It appeared early, showed up again at a higher daily exposure, and had not disappeared five days after dosing stopped.
That did not translate into the functional outcomes I was watching. Blood pressure and erectile function did not change, and I could not identify a subjectively quantifiable improvement in exercise tolerance. More visible veins are an appearance result here, not proof of improved endothelial health or cardiovascular protection.
Why I tested it
Vesugen is presented in the short-peptide literature as a vascular bioregulator. Small human reports described changes in blood-flow measures, while laboratory studies reported effects on proteins and signaling associated with vascular endothelium. That created a testable personal question: would a course produce a repeatable change in circulation, blood pressure, erectile function, exercise tolerance, or general well-being?
What Vesugen is
Vesugen, also spelled Vezugen in parts of the literature, is the synthetic tripeptide Lys-Glu-Asp, abbreviated KED. It is distinct from Vasalamin, an animal-tissue peptide extract, and from the full capsule mass printed on historical oral products.
The older oral supplement was described as containing 0.100 mg, or 100 micrograms, of active peptide material per capsule. A package label showing 0.2 g refers to the total capsule mass, not 200 mg of KED. For scale, 200 micrograms equals 0.2 mg.
Original plan
The starting plan was 1 mg by subcutaneous injection once daily for 30 days, from August 24 through September 22, 2026. The intended observation domains were blood pressure, resting heart rate, circulation, erectile function, exercise tolerance, general well-being, injection-site reactions, and other adverse effects.
This injected exposure was a personal protocol derived from community use. It was not the regimen used in the published human Vesugen reports, and it should not be read as a validated clinical protocol.
Protocol as run
The actual course extended beyond the original plan and changed dose several times. Dose Runway recorded 51 subcutaneous administrations across 41 dose dates between August 24 and October 4. Total exposure was 98 mg. The largest amount recorded on one calendar day was 10 mg.
The individual administration distribution was 17 injections at 1 mg, 29 at 2 mg, two at 4 mg, and three at 5 mg. September 7 was the only date inside the course with no logged dose.
| Dates | Pattern | Administrations | Phase total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24 to Sep 6 | 1 mg once daily | 14 | 14 mg |
| Sep 7 | No logged dose | 0 | 0 mg |
| Sep 8 to Sep 10 | 1 mg once daily | 3 | 3 mg |
| Sep 11 to Sep 21 | 2 mg once daily | 11 | 22 mg |
| Sep 22 to Sep 26 | 2 mg twice daily | 10 | 20 mg |
| Sep 27 | 4 mg twice | 2 | 8 mg |
| Sep 28 to Sep 29 | 2 mg twice daily | 4 | 8 mg |
| Sep 30 | 2 mg once | 1 | 2 mg |
| Oct 1 | 5 mg once | 1 | 5 mg |
| Oct 2 | 5 mg twice | 2 | 10 mg |
| Oct 3 | 2 mg twice | 2 | 4 mg |
| Oct 4 | 2 mg once | 1 | 2 mg |
Results
| Domain | Result | What I observed |
|---|---|---|
| Visible vascularity | Increased repeatedly | First noticed after the initial 1 mg dose, reported again at 4 mg/day, and still present five days after the final dose. |
| Blood pressure | No change | One early reading was 103/61 mmHg. The final course assessment was that blood pressure was not affected. |
| Erectile function | No change | No meaningful difference was observed during the experiment. |
| Exercise tolerance | No quantifiable change | No subjective improvement could be identified clearly enough to count as a result. |
| Tolerability | No reported problems | No adverse effects and no injection-site reactions were reported across 51 administrations. |
The visible vascularity signal
The first observation came on August 25 at 2:30 PM, about 19 hours after the first 1 mg injection. I reported that visible vascularity appeared noticeably increased. On September 24, while taking 2 mg twice daily, I again reported that my veins had become noticeably more visible.
Those observations occurred at separate points in the course and at different exposure levels, which makes the appearance change repeatable enough to retain as the experiment's positive result. I did not measure vein diameter, blood flow, or endothelial function, so the mechanism behind the visible change remains unmeasured.
Blood pressure and resting heart rate
An early spot check on August 26 was 103/61 mmHg with a resting heart rate of 62 bpm. One reading is not a trend. At the final review, my course-level assessment was that Vesugen had not affected my blood pressure. No reliable resting-heart-rate change emerged either.
Functional outcomes
I did not observe a difference in erectile function. Exercise tolerance was similarly unchanged in any way I could quantify subjectively. The course therefore did not reproduce a broader functional blood-flow benefit that I could detect in daily life.
Tolerability
I reported no adverse effects and no injection-site reactions across the course. Tolerability was clean, including during the later dose escalation. That answers the personal tolerability question for this run, but it does not establish general or long-term safety.
Did the effect persist?
The increased visible vascularity was still present on October 9, five days after the last logged dose. That establishes short follow-up persistence in this experiment. It does not tell me whether the change was permanent, how long it eventually lasted, or whether a future course would reproduce it.
The published Vesugen reports I found do not provide useful long-term post-treatment follow-up that would establish permanence or show that continuous dosing is required.
Why the result is mixed
- Visible vascularity increased on more than one occasion.
- The appearance change remained present five days after the final dose.
- Blood pressure and erectile function did not change.
- No exercise-tolerance improvement could be quantified subjectively.
- No adverse effects or injection-site reactions were reported.
Calling the experiment unsuccessful would discard the repeatable appearance change. Calling it successful would overstate what that change means. Mixed is the accurate conclusion: visible vascularity changed, while the broader functional vascular outcomes did not.
Final decision
The experiment is complete. I am retaining increased visible vascularity as the observed effect and not treating it as evidence of endothelial repair, improved cardiovascular health, or lower cardiovascular risk. I did not find a functional benefit that would support continuing Vesugen indefinitely.