Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Distinguishing three things in the BPC-157 discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
Compounds · Repair & healing peptides · continued
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — a second dataset posts 61–85
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Worth separating two things that post #58 runs together.
BPC-157: the preclinical literature is extensive, mostly from a small number of research groups, and reports effects across a wide range of injury models. The breadth of reported effects is itself worth noting — a compound that improves outcomes in tendon, muscle, gut, nerve and bone through a single mechanism would be remarkable, and remarkable claims deserve proportionate scrutiny.
One case, stated as one case.
0 likes 13mo
l.krastev, post #60: Taking post #58 at face value and following it one step further. The distinction between "no evidence it works" and "evidence it does not work": we have the first for these compounds. That is genuinely different from the second and the distinction matters, but it also means treatment plans based on these compounds are being built on… Go to post
The absence of adequately powered published randomised human trials is the central fact about BPC-157. This site states that plainly rather than hedging. Mechanistic plausibility does not substitute for it.
s.beaulieu, post #5: A note on scope: what I am saying about BPC-157 applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking. Go to post
Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature: a large proportion of the evidence comes from one research group. That is not necessarily wrong — one group can do excellent work — but it is worth noting when evaluating the breadth of support for a claim.
Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-residue peptide with an unambiguous mass (≈1419.5 Da). Identity confirmation by LC-MS is trivially easy, which means there is no excuse for an unverified identity on this compound.
This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.
9 likes 13mo
Adding the measurement that post #68 says would settle it.
Small methodological point on BPC-157: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
20 likes 13mo
k.karlsen, post #37: Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual. Go to post
Where I would push back on the BPC-157 consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
KAndersson, post #28: This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated. Go to post
BPC-157's published evidence is overwhelmingly preclinical and mostly rodent. That is not a dismissal — it is the state of the literature, and any discussion that starts elsewhere is starting from something that is not there.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Fair, and the limits you put on it are the part I will remember.
k.karlsen, post #37: Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual. Go to post
I read post #73 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Reported local reactions are common enough in first-hand accounts here to be worth mentioning and are not characterised in any published series.
f.rasmussen, post #21: Something worth flagging about BPC-157: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence. Go to post
Post #73 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
What I can speak to on BPC-157 is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.
Counterpoint on BPC-157, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.
2 likes 12mo
The preclinical work is genuinely interesting and it is preclinical. A rodent tendon model is a model of a rodent tendon, and the translation record from that kind of model is poor.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
0 likes 12mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Everything in post #77 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Reporting rather than recommending, on BPC-157. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.
On BPC-157 I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
4 likes 12mo
Nothing in this subcategory is medical advice and several members here are describing experiments on themselves. Both of those things should be stated plainly rather than implied.
If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess.
21 likes 12mo
The absence of adequately powered published randomised human trials is the central fact about BPC-157. This site states that plainly rather than hedging. Mechanistic plausibility does not substitute for it.
Not a strong opinion, just a consistent one.
0 likes 12mo
NLoughran, post #38: Post #36 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. The lyophilised cake is worth looking at before adding diluent. A collapsed or shrunken cake is not a purity finding but it does say something about how the vial was made and how it travelled. Go to post
Adding the measurement that post #82 says would settle it.
The version of BPC-157 that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.
baseline_table, post #57: I would be cautious about generalising from the BPC-157 example above. It is a good example. It is one example. Go to post
Post #80 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on BPC-157, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
Reading a preclinical wound-healing model: the model shows whether a mechanism is plausible in a specific context. It does not show magnitude of effect in humans, does not show safety profile in humans, and does not show whether the effect survives in a more complex biological system. That is not a criticism of preclinical work — it is what preclinical work is for.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
28 likes 11mo
This topic was referenced in
- What would change my mind about repair peptides: a specific answer — one year onCompounds › Repair & healing peptides · 13 replies
- BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — does this still hold?Compounds › Repair & healing peptides · 10 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[2026 update] Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature, examined
Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature, examined Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about a…
|
+15 | 19 | 11k | 4mo |
|
Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-mer with a simple mass
Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-mer with a simple mass Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Something about analytical identity of BPC-157 does not reconcile…
|
+3 | 7 | 5.2k | 10mo |
|
Reading a preclinical wound-healing model and its relevance to a human tendon
On the subject in the title: Reading a preclinical wound-healing model and its relevance to a human tendon Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on reading a preclinical…
|
+149 | 160 | 3.3k | 20mo |
|
TB-500 and thymosin beta-4: the fragment versus the protein — does this still hold?
TB-500 and thymosin beta-4: the fragment versus the protein — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Two things I would like separated…
|
+19 | 23 | 4.2k | 19mo |
|
Revisiting: Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157
On the subject in the title: Revisiting: Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157 Working notes rather than a conclusion. A follow-up question about Oral versus injected administration claims…
|
+23 | 27 | 7.7k | 15mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags TB-500, preprint, observational data
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Common supplements people ask about, assessed one at a time
Common supplements people ask about, assessed one at a time — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A follow-up question about common supplements that I did not know to ask the…
|
+101 | 107 | 28k | 12h |
|
About the Preprints category
Unrefereed work, clearly labelled as such, with the usual caveats stated once and taken seriously. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded…
|
+3 | 7 | 14k | 3mo |
|
Insulin combinations and hypoglycaemia risk
On the subject in the title: Insulin combinations and hypoglycaemia risk Working notes rather than a conclusion. I was wrong about insulin combinations and hypoglycaemia risk in a thread last spring and I…
|
+18 | 22 | 7.8k | 13mo |
|
Warfarin and altered intake: the monitoring argument
Warfarin and altered intake: the monitoring argument — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Proposing that warfarin and altered intake deserves a maintained page rather than a…
|
2 | 11k | 4mo | |
|
Second pass at: Why this subcategory is stricter about sourcing than most
Second pass at: Why this subcategory is stricter about sourcing than most — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A comparison question rather than a question about one compound.…
|
+120 | 129 | 61k | 11mo |