LongevityVentfort A-3Ventfort Lingual

Ventfort (A-3)

Khavinson 'Cytomax' bovine vascular-tissue extract · NOT a defined molecule · zero independent literature under its own name

Ventfort is a Russian 'Cytomax' peptide preparation from the Khavinson school (St. Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology), sold as a dietary-supplement 'bioregulator' for the vascular system. The single most important fact about it is what it is NOT: it is not a defined molecule. Ventfort is a peptide complex extracted from bovine (calf) vascular and aortic tissue — a mixture of low-molecular-weight peptides, with no single sequence, formula or weight. That means there is nothing to verify in the chemical database: no PubChem entry, no CAS number, no structure. It also has no scientific literature of its own — a search of the primary biomedical database returns zero records under the name 'Ventfort.' A common point of confusion makes this worse: Ventfort is frequently mixed up with Vesugen, a different product that IS a defined synthetic tripeptide (KED). They are not the same thing, and Vesugen's verifiable chemistry must not be borrowed to make Ventfort look more substantiated than it is. Vendors attach sweeping claims to Ventfort — that it repairs blood vessels and treats atherosclerosis, hypertension, varicose veins and more — none of which is backed by any clinical trial under this name. The honest framing: a bovine tissue extract with expansive vascular disease claims, no defined chemical identity, and no independent evidence of its own.

TL;DRThe whole page · in 30 seconds

Vascular Bioregulator · Khavinson System · Longevity Course · Aging Vasculature

The vascular tile of the Russian Khavinson bioregulator system. Ventfort is reached for as the blood-vessel slot in a tissue-by-tissue longevity routine — the piece a bioregulator stack assigns to aging vasculature.

The basics

A bovine vascular-tissue extract used as the vascular member of the Khavinson 'Cytomax' line.
Run as a short course, not continuously — the way the whole bioregulator family is used.

Why people use it

Fills the vascular slot in a Khavinson stack — the one people reach for when they want a blood-vessel piece in a tissue-by-tissue bioregulator routine.
An aging-vasculature angle — positioned squarely at the blood vessels as the target tissue within the longevity framework.
A low-burden addition to a longevity course — a simple, course-based supplement that asks little of the user.

How to run it

Dose: ~20 mg a day (2 × 10 mg capsules)
How often: Once daily, within a course
How: Oral capsule by mouth (the documented product form)
When: Anytime — just keep to one consistent daily time
Cycle: ~30-day courses, then 2–6 months off

Stacks well with

Vesugen — the other Khavinson vascular peptide, used to cover the vascular system from a second angle. A different molecule, not the same thing as Ventfort.

Good to know

Run it as a course, not continuously — short pulses with months off between, the bioregulator pattern.
Don't confuse it with Vesugen — they're different molecules, and Vesugen's chemistry doesn't belong to Ventfort.
Exercise and blood-pressure control are the proven vascular foundation — Ventfort sits on top of those, never in place of them.

Bottom line: The vascular slot in a Khavinson longevity routine — run as a short course, kept separate from Vesugen, and built on top of the proven vascular basics.

Molecular identity

Specs

Structure / class: Natural peptide extract ('Cytomax A-3') from bovine vascular/aortic tissue; Khavinson-school bioregulatorVendor product literature (marketing)
Sequence: Not applicable — multi-peptide tissue extract, no ordered sequenceVendor describes a peptide complex; no sequence asserted
Molecular formula: Not applicable — undefined extractNo single molecule — cannot be assigned a formula
Molecular weight: Not a single species; vendor cites a mixture 'up to ~10,000 Da'Vendor claim about the peptide mixture (not a defined MW)
CAS / UNII: Unverified — not asserted (undefined extract)No CAS or UNII for an undefined tissue-extract mixture
PubChem CID: Unverified — not assertedPubChem search for 'Ventfort' returns no matching compound (count = 0). Do NOT borrow Vesugen's CID 87571363
Molecular target: No defined molecule and no classic receptor; vendor claims a vascular 'bioregulator' effect (no Ventfort-specific evidence)Vendor marketing (not independently established)
Half-life: Not established (undefined mixture; no pharmacokinetics)Not established
Not to be confused with: Vesugen (synthetic tripeptide KED / Lys-Glu-Asp, CID 87571363) — a DIFFERENT, defined productIdentity disambiguation
Regulatory status: Sold as a dietary supplement; not approved as a medicine by any major regulator; no controlled human trials locatedNo NDA/BLA/EMA record located

Plain English

Mechanism

Vendors describe Ventfort using the general Khavinson 'peptide bioregulator' story: that tissue-specific short peptides reach cells, influence gene activity, and 'restore' the function of their target organ — here, the blood vessels. But this is the school's broad hypothesis applied by analogy; there is no Ventfort-specific experiment demonstrating any such mechanism.

Because Ventfort is an undefined extract rather than a single molecule, even the usual single-school mechanistic claims (a specific peptide binding specific DNA) cannot be pinned to it — there is no defined peptide to study. What is left is a general 'bioregulation' narrative with no molecular detail and no data of its own.

The honest mechanistic picture is essentially empty: an extract with a marketing rationale borrowed from the wider bioregulator hypothesis, and no demonstrated mechanism specific to Ventfort.

Why people reach for it

Potential benefits

Ventfort is positioned for one thing — vascular support in aging — so here is what draws people to it, framed honestly given how little stands behind it.

A 'vascular' slot in a Khavinson longevity routine — Within the Khavinson 'one bioregulator per tissue' framework, Ventfort is the piece assigned to the blood vessels — which is the main reason people who run that whole protocol reach for it, not because any vascular outcome has been demonstrated.
An aging-focused, course-based supplement — It is used the way the rest of the Cytomax line is used: short periodic 'courses' aimed at general age-related decline, appealing to people already invested in the bioregulator approach to longevity.
A low-burden addition by design — Marketed as a simple, well-tolerated supplement rather than a drug — part of its appeal is that it asks little of the user, though 'no reported harm' here reflects the absence of any study, not a proven safety record.
Pulls attention to the vascular levers that do work — The most defensible reason to engage with Ventfort's vascular framing is that it points at vascular health at all — and the proven levers there (exercise, blood-pressure control, not smoking, NO-precursor nutrition) vastly outweigh the extract itself.

Sources:PubMed (verified count = 0 for 'Ventfort')PubChem (no compound for 'Ventfort')

What people reach for Ventfort for, based on how it is positioned and used — NOT proven outcomes. Ventfort has zero studies under its own name and no defined molecule, so none of these are demonstrated effects or medical claims.

Implied timing

Best time to dose

Implied best time

Anytime (consistent)

There is no meaningful timing for Ventfort — pick a time you can keep to every day across the course and stay consistent.

Ventfort has no defined molecule and no pharmacokinetics — no half-life, no absorption curve — so there is literally nothing to time a dose against. Consistency of habit is the only lever left.
It is used as a once-daily oral capsule within a short Khavinson-style course; what matters for adherence is locking it to a fixed daily slot, not chasing an 'optimal' hour that the evidence cannot define.
If it is run alongside other bioregulators, spacing the doses through the day is purely for routine and convenience — not because any interaction or rhythm has been shown.

No study establishes an ideal time of day for Ventfort — there are no studies at all, and no pharmacokinetics to reason from. This is a consistency recommendation, not a mechanistic one. As a general rule peptide dosing lands in the midday-to-evening window; for Ventfort any consistent time is equally defensible.

Sources:PubMed (verified count = 0 for 'Ventfort')PubChem (no compound for 'Ventfort')

How to run it

Dosing & protocol

Ventfort's documented product form is an oral capsule (10 mg each), with the vendor protocol being roughly 20 mg/day (2 × 10 mg) taken as a 30-day course, repeated every 2–6 months. That oral course is the standard described below. There is NO injectable Ventfort product, and no documented subcutaneous practice was located — so any SubQ figures here are a hypothetical conversion only, not an observed convention. There is no validated human dose under any route, because there are no trials; even the oral course is unverified vendor marketing.

Unverified vendor convention: Ventfort has ZERO human trials and no published dose. It has no single-molecule identity and no PubMed record under its own name. The documented form is an oral capsule course; no injectable Ventfort product or documented SC practice was located, so the mcg figures below are an unverified extrapolation, not an observed convention. Every number is a usage pattern lifted from vendor oral protocols (or extrapolated from them), labeled as such.

Dose — vendor oral course (unverified)

The documented standard is the vendor's oral capsule course; a SubQ figure is included only as an unverified hypothetical extrapolation.

Vendor-stated oral course dose:: The documented Ventfort product is a 10 mg oral capsule, taken at roughly 20 mg per day (2 × 10 mg) for a 30-day course, repeated every 2–6 months. This oral course is the standard convention — itself unverified vendor marketing with no pharmacokinetic basis.
Route:: Oral capsule (and historically a sublingual tablet) — the documented commercial product form. There is NO injectable Ventfort product, and no documented subcutaneous practice was located. Any SubQ use is a hypothetical conversion only, not an observed convention.
SubQ figure is an unverified extrapolation:: No injectable Ventfort product or documented SC practice was located; the often-cited 1,000–2,000 mcg (1–2 mg) SubQ figure is an unverified extrapolation from the oral course, not an observed convention. No pharmacokinetic study has established what (if any) SubQ dose corresponds to the oral protocol, or what dose is even biologically active.

Administration (oral course; SubQ hypothetical only)

The documented route is the once-daily oral capsule. The subcutaneous details below apply ONLY to the hypothetical reconstitution and are not an observed Ventfort practice.

Oral capsule:: Take the capsule(s) once daily at a consistent time — vendor instructions say before meals. This is the documented product form and the route the course is built around.
Time of day:: No chronobiology data exists for Ventfort, and with no defined molecule there is nothing to time the dose against — see Best time to dose above. The only sensible rule is a consistent daily time; once daily at whatever hour you can keep to reliably.
If reconstituted (hypothetical SubQ only):: No injectable Ventfort product or documented SC practice was located, so this is hypothetical: were the powder reconstituted, a SubQ injection would go into the abdomen (a couple of inches clear of the navel), the love-handle area, or the outer thigh, rotating sites to prevent local irritation and fatty lumps (lipohypertrophy). Subcutaneous injection is independent of meals.

Cycle & washout

The Khavinson school recommends periodic 'courses' rather than continuous use, and the documented oral protocol follows that pulse structure.

Standard course:: Vendor protocol: approximately 30 days on (a 4–6 week run).
Washout:: Vendor recommendation: 2–6 months between courses — at minimum a 4–8 week break. No desensitization data exists to ground either figure.
Honesty note:: The cycle schedule is derived directly from the vendor's oral-supplement course recommendations. There is no controlled evidence that this structure is optimal — or that any cycle structure improves outcomes — given the absence of any human or animal study for Ventfort.

Formulation note

Ventfort's documented form is the oral capsule. The mixing math below is reference-only for a hypothetical lyophilized-powder reconstitution — no injectable Ventfort product or documented SC practice was located. The calculator on this page handles any vial size.

Oral / sublingual form:: The documented commercial product is the oral capsule (and historically a sublingual lingual tablet) — no reconstitution applies. Vendor instructions state 1–2 capsules once or twice daily before meals (≈20 mg/day). These are unverified marketing protocols, not evidence-derived schedules.
Hypothetical mixing:: If a supplier offered a lyophilized powder (none documented): 10 mg vial + 2 mL bacteriostatic water = 5,000 mcg per mL. On a 100-unit (1 mL) insulin syringe: 1,000 mcg = 20 IU · 2,000 mcg = 40 IU.
What this covers:: This card is mixing math only. No storage guidance is provided here — storage information for all peptides is on the calculator page. Sterile reconstitution technique (needle handling, aseptic prep) is not covered on any kiresearcher page.

Sources:PubMed (verified count = 0 for 'Ventfort')PubChem (no compound for 'Ventfort')

Substrate the signal needs

Nutritional cofactor precision

Ventfort is positioned as a vascular product, so the most useful cofactors are the nutrients vascular biology actually runs on — not a Ventfort cofactor study (none exists). Up front: these lifestyle and nutrition inputs are by far the more-defensible investment than an unproven bovine extract. The proven levers come first.

Reasoned from vascular physiology and general nutrition science — not a Ventfort cofactor study, because no Ventfort study exists. Supplement doses are standard nutrition ranges, not Ventfort-specific findings. The lifestyle factors listed first (exercise, blood pressure control, not smoking) have dramatically better evidence than anything in this catalog.

The proven vascular levers (amplify what actually works)

These are not supplements — they are the interventions with the strongest evidence for vascular health. They vastly outweigh any unproven extract.

Exercise:: Regular aerobic exercise directly improves endothelial function, reduces arterial stiffness, lowers resting blood pressure, and upregulates endothelial nitric-oxide synthase (eNOS). 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity cardiovascular exercise is the evidence-backed minimum for vascular benefit. This single lever has orders-of-magnitude more evidence than Ventfort.
Blood pressure control:: Sustained elevated blood pressure is the dominant mechanical driver of vascular wall damage and atherosclerosis. Reducing and maintaining blood pressure in a healthy range — through diet, exercise, weight, or medication if needed — addresses the actual mechanism of vascular deterioration. No supplement replaces this.
Not smoking:: Tobacco smoking directly damages endothelial cells, promotes oxidative stress, and accelerates arterial stiffening. Cessation is the single highest-impact individual intervention for vascular health. Any supplement taken while continuing to smoke is working against a much larger opposing force.

Nitric-oxide substrate supply (L-arginine · L-citrulline · dietary nitrate)

Nitric oxide (NO) is the primary vasodilatory signal — it relaxes smooth muscle in vessel walls. Supply the precursors.

L-citrulline:: 3–6 g daily (more survives gut transit than L-arginine, which is largely degraded by arginase before reaching circulation). The body converts L-citrulline to L-arginine in the kidneys, which then feeds eNOS to produce NO. Take in the morning, independent of meals.
Dietary nitrate:: High-nitrate vegetables — beetroot, arugula, spinach, celery — provide nitrate that gut bacteria convert to nitrite and then to NO via a distinct, non-eNOS pathway. A daily serving of leafy greens or a glass of beetroot juice amplifies the dietary nitrate route.
Why these:: Endothelial NO production is the biochemical mechanism behind vascular tone. If Ventfort has any vascular effect, it would operate in the same biology these precursors directly feed. At minimum, these are the raw material the vessel wall needs.

Vascular structural support (vitamin C · omega-3 · folate + B-vitamins)

The building blocks of vessel-wall integrity and the housekeeping nutrients that prevent vascular damage from metabolic byproducts.

Vitamin C:: 500–1,000 mg daily. A required cofactor in collagen hydroxylation — the step that makes collagen structurally stable. Vessel walls are collagen-dependent; deficiency directly weakens vascular structure. Take with meals to reduce GI discomfort at higher doses.
Omega-3 (EPA/DHA):: 2–3 g combined EPA/DHA daily from fish oil or algae oil. EPA and DHA reduce triglyceride levels, lower systemic inflammatory tone (via resolvin and protectin synthesis), and improve endothelial function — all well-supported vascular mechanisms. Take with food containing fat for absorption.
Folate + B6 + B12:: Standard multivitamin or dedicated B-complex at RDA–2× RDA levels. These B-vitamins drive homocysteine remethylation; elevated homocysteine is a recognised marker of endothelial stress and vascular risk. Keeping homocysteine in range removes a documented vascular risk factor.

Combinations + timing

Stacking notes + timing windows

Within the Khavinson 'one bioregulator per tissue' framework, Ventfort's natural in-family partner is Vesugen (KED), the other vascular-assigned product. Beyond that, users combine it with the broader bioregulator set. Two hard honesty caveats apply before any of this: Ventfort has zero studies and no defined molecule, so any stack is speculation layered on speculation — doubly unproven. And the Vesugen-conflation trap is real (read below).

Speculation-on-speculation: Ventfort has zero studies under its own name and no defined molecule. Any stacking rationale is framework-reasoning without evidence, compounded by the fact that the stack partners themselves are mostly single-school, unvalidated compounds. These are user combinations from the Khavinson framework — not protocols studied in any controlled setting.

Ventfort + Vesugen (KED) — the Vesugen-conflation trap

Vesugen is the other vascular-assigned Khavinson product. But before treating this as a natural pair, the conflation trap must be addressed directly.

The trap:: Ventfort and Vesugen are routinely confused. Vesugen is a defined synthetic tripeptide (Lys-Glu-Asp, KED, PubChem CID 87571363) with a real molecular identity. Ventfort is an undefined bovine tissue extract. They are different products. Any source giving Ventfort the KED sequence or CID 87571363 is incorrectly applying Vesugen's chemistry to Ventfort. Do not treat them as the same molecule — they are not.
Why the pairing is still proposed:: Within the Khavinson framework, Vesugen and Ventfort are both assigned to the vascular system, so users combine them on the 'cover the vascular system from two angles' logic. Vesugen has some single-school Russian-language evidence behind it (as a defined tripeptide); Ventfort has none.
The protocol:: Vendor convention: both products run as separate simultaneous oral courses — Ventfort at its vendor-stated ~20 mg/day oral dose, Vesugen at its own vendor convention (~10–20 mg oral equivalent). No injectable Ventfort product is documented, so any SubQ figure is an unverified extrapolation. No head-to-head study exists.
Outcome:: Reached for in the Khavinson framework on a general vascular-support goal. Honesty: stacking two single-school, unvalidated compounds does not produce validated evidence — it produces compounded uncertainty.

Ventfort + broader Khavinson bioregulator set

Users who run Ventfort within the Khavinson framework often add organ-specific peptides — pineal (Epithalamin/Epitalon), thymic, or immune-targeted — to cover multiple systems at once.

Why it is done:: The Khavinson school frames aging as the cumulative decline of each tissue's 'regulation,' addressed by administering the corresponding tissue extract. Running several at once follows the multi-tissue logic of that framework. This is framework-reasoning, not experimental evidence.
The protocol:: Each product at its own vendor-stated dose run simultaneously, usually as a 30-day course. Doses are per-product vendor convention; no interaction or combined-dose study exists for any combination in this set.
Outcome:: Reached for in the Khavinson geroprotection framework as a broad multi-system 'bioregulation' approach. Note: the evidentiary value of each additional undefined extract is additive uncertainty, not additive evidence. The more-defensible vascular investment remains the lifestyle cofactors above.

Reconstitution math

Reconstitution calculator

Calculated for a 1 mL U-100 insulin syringe (100 units/mL).

Peptide per vial

BAC water added

Desired dose

Units per dose

Draw to this mark on a U-100 syringe

Volume per dose: 0.2 mL
Doses per vial: 10
Concentration: 5 mg/mL

One vial lasts

Daily: 10 days
Every other day: 20 days
5×/week: 14 days

Research use only. Not for human consumption. Outputs are reference values based on research literature — verify all measurements independently.

From the studies

Side effects from research

There is no meaningful human safety database for Ventfort. With zero studies under its name, side effects, rare events, and long-term risk are simply uncharacterised. Absence of reported harm is not evidence of safety — it reflects the absence of any research.

Because the product is marketed for serious vascular conditions (atherosclerosis, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, varicose veins) that it has no evidence to treat, relying on it in place of proven cardiovascular care would be a real risk.

Bovine-extract sourcing adds batch variability and identity risk independent of any claimed peptide activity. The honest summary: Ventfort's human safety is entirely uncharacterised.

As reported in literature

Research dosing ranges

There is no study to tabulate. Under its own name, Ventfort has zero records in the primary biomedical database, so there is no experimental dose, model or outcome to show — only vendor 'course' schedules, which are marketing, not evidence. The single row below records that absence honestly rather than dressing up another peptide's data as Ventfort's.

Dose	Route	Model	Outcome	Sources:
None	No trial	No study exists under the name 'Ventfort' (verified PubMed count = 0)	There is no experimental or human dosing evidence for Ventfort. Vendor 'course' schedules (e.g. capsules daily for ~1 month, repeated periodically) are unverified marketing, not trial-derived doses	PubMed (verified count = 0 for 'Ventfort')

Quick answers

Frequently asked

What is Ventfort?

It is a Russian 'Cytomax' supplement from the Khavinson bioregulator family, sold for vascular (blood-vessel) health. It is a peptide complex extracted from bovine vascular tissue — not a single defined molecule — designated 'A-3.'

Is Ventfort the same as Vesugen?

No. This is a common and important confusion. Vesugen is a different product — a defined synthetic tripeptide (KED / Lys-Glu-Asp, PubChem CID 87571363) with a real chemical identity. Ventfort is an undefined tissue extract. Any source giving Ventfort a precise formula, sequence, or CID is almost certainly borrowing Vesugen's chemistry by mistake.

Does Ventfort repair blood vessels or treat atherosclerosis?

There is no evidence that it does. Vendors make sweeping vascular disease claims, but a search of the primary biomedical database returns zero studies under the name 'Ventfort.' These are unsubstantiated marketing claims, not clinical findings.

What is its chemical structure?

It does not have one. Ventfort is a mixture of peptides from animal tissue, so it has no single sequence, formula, molecular weight, or database identifier. This is why none of those fields can be filled in honestly.

Is there a known dose?

No. There is no citable, trial-grounded human dose — there are no trials at all. The documented form is an oral capsule at a vendor-stated ~20 mg/day course, which is itself unverified marketing, not trial-derived. There is no injectable Ventfort product or documented subcutaneous practice; any SubQ figure on this page is an unverified extrapolation of the oral course, not an observed convention.

Why is this the highest-uncertainty page on the site?

Three compounding reasons: (1) Ventfort is not a defined molecule — it is a tissue extract with no chemical identity to verify; (2) it has zero studies under its own name in PubMed; (3) it is frequently confused with Vesugen, a different product, causing even the modest Vesugen literature to be misattributed to it. No other page in this catalog combines all three.

Primary sources

References

PubMed (verified count = 0 for 'Ventfort')PubMed — a search for the exact name 'Ventfort' returns zero records (E-utilities esearch, empty result). There is no PMID-backed study of Ventfort; this entry documents that verified absence of evidence
PubChem (no compound for 'Ventfort')PubChem — a search for 'Ventfort' returns no matching compound (count = 0); Ventfort is an undefined tissue extract with no single-molecule record. Do NOT confuse with Vesugen (CID 87571363)

Reviewed by Ki Researcher Team · Research use only · Not medical advice · Updated 2026-06-19