Anyone tried oral BPC-157 caps?
- Thread starter u_e_s_i
- Start date
Cheeky Monkey
Well-known member
I don't know about Labolic brand but I remember reading a post by Whiskey who said that oral BPC does work and he recommended Dr. Seeds Body Protective Complex.
BigNerd
New member
I don't know just how much, but there's definitely gonna be degradation in the liver. And it'll be particularly bad because anything administered orally, then swallowed passes the liver twice. If you're gonna try it I suggest you mix an open capsule with 1 ml water and, hold that under your tongue for a minimum of 20 seconds. Sublinguals, transdermals, and injectables only take a single liver pass. And for that ridiculous price I can buy 3 5 mg lyophilized powder vials. So that's reconstituted, then injected with an insulin syringe. MZ store has some great stuff, but I'd save my money, if I were you.
I did find this, though: "
As it has been observed to have a more localized, proximate healing effect, it has been hypothesized that BPC-157 may have a substantial beneficial impact when administered orally on injuries suffered in the gastrointestinal system.
Further, as other studies have illuminated the peptide’s positive impact on healing regarding the “brain-gut” axis, regenerative effects resulting from the oral route have also been hypothesized to extend to neuroprotection and healing as well.
But can it still be effective in healing musculoskeletal injuries when given orally?
Successful Application of BPC-157 For Oral Use
To date, several clinical studies conducted using rat test subjects have observed the effects of both parenteral administration (injection) of BPC-157 as well as oral administration.
Generally, these studies have yielded promising results, with oral administration observed to be significantly effective.
For example, oral delivery has been observed to provide measurable neuroprotective effects in rat test subjects exposed to cuprizone (a neurotoxin). Likewise, ancillary research suggests that the peptide’s influence in the brain-gut axis may be responsible for these benefits as well.
It is important to note that at this time, studies have only been conducted using rodent subjects and not performance animals like greyhounds or horses.
However, to be clear, several clinical studies have given strong evidence for the efficacy of BPC-157 when administered orall"
University texts: Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Haha, and this is funny if you know what a fistula is!
Invalid Link Removed
I did find this, though: "
As it has been observed to have a more localized, proximate healing effect, it has been hypothesized that BPC-157 may have a substantial beneficial impact when administered orally on injuries suffered in the gastrointestinal system.
Further, as other studies have illuminated the peptide’s positive impact on healing regarding the “brain-gut” axis, regenerative effects resulting from the oral route have also been hypothesized to extend to neuroprotection and healing as well.
But can it still be effective in healing musculoskeletal injuries when given orally?
Successful Application of BPC-157 For Oral Use
To date, several clinical studies conducted using rat test subjects have observed the effects of both parenteral administration (injection) of BPC-157 as well as oral administration.
Generally, these studies have yielded promising results, with oral administration observed to be significantly effective.
For example, oral delivery has been observed to provide measurable neuroprotective effects in rat test subjects exposed to cuprizone (a neurotoxin). Likewise, ancillary research suggests that the peptide’s influence in the brain-gut axis may be responsible for these benefits as well.
It is important to note that at this time, studies have only been conducted using rodent subjects and not performance animals like greyhounds or horses.
However, to be clear, several clinical studies have given strong evidence for the efficacy of BPC-157 when administered orall"
University texts: Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Haha, and this is funny if you know what a fistula is!
Invalid Link Removed
thebigt
Legend
big fan of transdermals...depending on carrier they can be either local or systematic, I would think best use in this case would be local?
Wallet55
Member
Considering the molecular weight of BPC being over 1400 g/mol, I think it's a waste transdermal. Isn't the limit around 300-400 daltons?
Lynks8
Well-known member
There is zero evidence (that I’ve seen) of any big brand selling legit bpc-157 in caps.
Dr seeds is NOT the same as the actual bpc-157 peptide.
Furthermore, even when using legit bpc, users report greater effects when administered locally as opposed to orally, (which is not to say oral admin is without benefit).
My advice: buy the actual peptide from maresearchchems (site sponsor that has built up trust here over many years), and do local subq injections if you want the greatest chance at seeing real results.
edit: and stay far away from transdermals and/or “patches”, unless you like being ripped off.
Dr seeds is NOT the same as the actual bpc-157 peptide.
Furthermore, even when using legit bpc, users report greater effects when administered locally as opposed to orally, (which is not to say oral admin is without benefit).
My advice: buy the actual peptide from maresearchchems (site sponsor that has built up trust here over many years), and do local subq injections if you want the greatest chance at seeing real results.
edit: and stay far away from transdermals and/or “patches”, unless you like being ripped off.
Last edited:
justhere4comm
Banned
It’s 500 Dalton’s.
With a micro needle mesh made up of the BPC could work but once in solution the clock starts ticking. Peptides are fragile. Maybe someone with more knowledge could see value in an application such as this.
Oral or SubQ would be best.
It’s systemic.
Last edited:
BigNerd
New member
Oh, and if you've suffered an injury, here's some news for you. A peer reviewed study was just released stating (paraphrasing) ice is the worst thing you can do for an injury. Just as NSAIDs do, ice disrupts the inflammatory response that actually helps healing. NSAIDs block prostaglandins, which in turn block pain signals (where macrophages cause IGF-1 to be delivered to the area), and many prostaglandins are important for healing, even anabolism.
BBiceps
Well-known member
Let me/us know how it works, good luck!
mad dog
Member
I will as soon as it arrives.
TheIronAsylum
Active member
innn
cheftepesh1
Well-known member
Thoughts on transdermal versions. A GeForce has a patch that give .5mg
justhere4comm
Banned
How do they get past the 500 dalton rule?
On their site: 1mg of BPC 157 with a delivered .5mg.
I'll ask them and see what their answer is, and get back if they do.
justhere4comm
Banned
Reply.
Invalid Link Removed
Same company offers a Growth Hormone Patch.
Sorry. Nope.
Invalid Link Removed
Same company offers a Growth Hormone Patch.
Sorry. Nope.
Last edited:
banjobounce
Active member
This. Seeds brand is not actually bpc 157, but it is a peptide sequence that is supposed to break down into it. It helped with my gut. Cant really speak on an injuries.
SHR has a code for 20 percent off as well.
BBiceps
Well-known member
What do you mean with “helped with my gut”? The reason I ask is because I feel bloated a lot, even when I eat clean, and I think it has to do with my digestion, would it help for that?
Wallet55
Member
What a joke of an answer, they didn't answer anything
justhere4comm
Banned
Yeah, I wrote them back... I informed them, unless they used a micro-fiber matrix they are full of it.
Have a nice day, buh-bye.
Their Growth Hormone Patch has other things in it that are 'feel good' that make you think something is happening. And, it is, I'm sure, but I don't see an GH being stimulated or increased by patches.
So many more elegant solutions that are proven, and cheaper.. well ,maybe not cheaper.
I suppose it depends what road you take.
banjobounce
Active member
Specifically, I'm talking about gut inflammation in the morning hours. I had struggled with stomach pain and bloating upon waking. Its obviously not going to overcome any large insult placed on the gut, but it did accelerate recovery once I had done away with what I had been eating before bed.
chuck taylor
New member
Oral bpc 157 at thymosinlabs.com
Cheeky Monkey
Well-known member
But that site is for animals (veterinary health). Isn't it dangerous to take supps meant for animals?
thehogsters
Active member
BPC and TB500 must be injected. Pills or patches are worthless.
justhere4comm
Banned
Dr. Seeds...
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Last edited:
PortlandAllen
New member
Dr. Seeds contains no BPC-157 and does not claim to. Check the label. They claim it contains a pre-cursor to BPC-157. Their use of the letters BPC, is, in my opinion confusing. I'm not saying the the Dr. Seed's folks are wrong or unethical, just that potential customers are confused if they are looking for BPC-157.
PortlandAllen
New member
No. Why are you saying that? Look up and skim over the 140 rat studies at the NIH site pubmed gov. Search BPC-157. They found no difference in effect between injection, oral, or even a topical cream! Surprising, I know but them's the facts.
BPC-157 is not like other peptides because it was discovered IN the gastric juices.
That is not to say that a pill or patch you may buy that has no 3rd party testing is what it says it is. ;-)
Renew1
Legend
That makes no sense.
Those 3 methods of delivery have HUGE differences.
I'm not talking about this one compound, I'm talking in general.
... For that to hold true for BPC ..... BPC would have to change the nature of those delivery methods.
... Are you positive you read that right?
AdelV
Well-known member
I'm currently taking a UK brand orally, as I broke my wrist. I can't say I've noticed any benefits, including gut benefits.
I actually still feel bloated, and having minor issues. This is a well know brand, has a huge line up of SARMS with great reviews across the board.Ohwell
I actually still feel bloated, and having minor issues. This is a well know brand, has a huge line up of SARMS with great reviews across the board.Ohwell
Iwilleattuna
Well-known member
I'd definitely only trust the injection method after reading more. Unfortunate the oral method didn't even help digestion
AdelV
Well-known member
Yeah, I was hoping for some gut healing. I haven't noticed anything yet tho
u_e_s_i
Well-known member
I’m in the uk too, what brand are you taking?
PortlandAllen
New member
I understand how that seems. But BPC-157 mimics the peptide created in the stomach's gastric juices--it is the normal way it gets into the action. I think the wisdom is that that any other peptide would be broken up into individual proteins by enzymes.
You ask: am I positive I read that right?
Pretty sure but what is my assurance worth? Nada
Go to pubmed.gov (the U.S. NIH web site showing summaries from virtually all published health studies) and search 'BPC-157'This will show what you'll get. You may need to see the complete published study for the methodology and many are behind a pay wall. Please double check what my claim is but keep in mind that I am claiming only that read it in published studies in plain enough English that I'm sure I'm not mistaken.
Invalid Link Removed
Example:
After MCL transection (ouch!) BPC 157 was effective in rats when given once daily intraperitoneally* (10 microg or 10 ng/kg) or locally as a thin layer (1.0 microg dissolved in distilled water/g commercial neutral cream) [...] Likewise, BPC 157 was effective given per-orally (0.16 microg/ml in the drinking water (12 ml/day/rat)) until sacrifice.
Invalid Link Removed
* injection of a substance into the peritoneum (body cavity). It is more often applied to animals than to humans.
PortlandAllen
New member
Treatment of BPC 157 was administered orally in drinking water, topically via a thin cream and via intraperitoneal administration over a 90-day period. This suggests that the peptide has a therapeutic benefit via a wide range of delivery mechanisms
Novinscak et al. (2008) went on to compare the effectiveness of both systemic (intraperitoneal) and local treatment (as a thin cream layer) over a period of 14 days in crushed muscle
BPC 157 is a very stable water-soluble peptide that is resistant in human gastric acid for at least 24 h.
Invalid Link Removed
Novinscak et al. (2008) went on to compare the effectiveness of both systemic (intraperitoneal) and local treatment (as a thin cream layer) over a period of 14 days in crushed muscle
BPC 157 is a very stable water-soluble peptide that is resistant in human gastric acid for at least 24 h.
Invalid Link Removed
Renew1
Legend
It was said that (based upon a study, apparently), oral, TD and IM were Equally effective with BPC.
That's not true, however. The differences in the 3 routes of administration don't allow a substance to be "equally effective" when used by these wildly varying methods.
Perhaps you were misspeaking?
It is possible (with some compounds) to achieve effects by all 3 routes.
However, they would not be Equally Effective.
They would simply all be effective, in varying degrees.
That's not true, however. The differences in the 3 routes of administration don't allow a substance to be "equally effective" when used by these wildly varying methods.
Perhaps you were misspeaking?
It is possible (with some compounds) to achieve effects by all 3 routes.
However, they would not be Equally Effective.
They would simply all be effective, in varying degrees.
PortlandAllen
New member
I'm not making the claim. I'm just pointing out what's reported in studies.
Without attempting to offend, I have to point out that you are making this claim: 'they would not be Equally Effective.'
I can understand that seems reasonable, however, what seems common sense to us is not always supported in studies. Otherwise, why do tests? We could just imagine what seems reasonable to us and save a lot of time and money.
Renew1
Legend
I'm not making the claim. I'm just pointing out what's reported in studies.
Without attempting to offend, I have to point out that you are making this claim: 'they would not be Equally Effective.'
I can understand that seems reasonable, however, what seems common sense to us is not always supported in studies. Otherwise, why do tests? We could just imagine what seems reasonable to us and save a lot of time and money.
I'm not making up a claim.
There are countless studies pointing out the differences in the 3 routes of administration.
This is not just common sense .... It is how these routes work, and differ.
Take care, man.
PortlandAllen
New member
I'm not making up a claim.
There are countless studies pointing out the differences in the 3 routes of administration.
This is not just common sense .... It is how these routes work, and differ.
Take care, man.
For BPC-157? Care to point any of these countless studies out? I only see 140 total studies concerning BPC-157, not countless.
I understand that is generally true, for example, the difference between putting heroin on your skin and injecting it. But take another molecule, nicotine: lungs (via smoke or vapor) or topical. Topical is highly effective.
When it comes to the complexity of molecules and biology--there is no 'common sense.' ;-)
Renew1
Legend
Care to point out how BPC has magical properties to change reality, like no other compound has?
Go ahead hoss.. . I'll wait
Renew1
Legend
So you are saying Nicotine is EQUALLY EFFECTIVE via the three different routes?
No
Wallet55
Member
Did you just compared the efficacy of nicotine (162 g/mol) to BPC 157 (over 1400 g/mol) as a transdermal? lol there is common sense, even wit complex bio molecules...
PortlandAllen
New member
It's an example of the difference between heroin and nicotine. I'm not suggesting smoking BPC-157.
Again, I'm not saying it--I'm saying it's reported in many of the 140 BPC-157 studies that they found no dose dependent differences despite the method (oral, injection (2 kinds,) or topical.
You are are the one saying it 'does' make a difference. That is your claim. I see no support for your claim about BPC-157.
Renew1
Legend
It's an example of the difference between heroin and nicotine. I'm not suggesting smoking BPC-157.
Again, I'm not saying it--I'm saying it's reported in many of the 140 BPC-157 studies that they found no dose dependent differences despite the method (oral, injection (2 kinds,) or topical.
You are are the one saying it 'does' make a difference. That is your claim. I see no support for your claim about BPC-157.
You're right.
You are absolutely correct.
BPC is a mystical, magical compound that changes what we know about the physical laws of this Universe.
Point taken.
Thanks for the heads up.
Discussion over.
You're 100% correct.
PortlandAllen
New member
Got me curious about nicotine! I think the answer is yes.
Comparing max dose items to make it level:
Oral (gum), topical patch, or smoke look like they deliver the same effective dose of nicotine (what gets in the blood stream.)
5.25 max dose (21 4 mg) gum per day = 1 daily max dose patch (21 mg) = 10 cigs (20 mg total at 2mg each) per day
The difference will be in the addictive quality. The smoke will ramp up your level fast. That reinforces the addictive response more. It's like the difference between cocaine and crack (or free-based) cocaine. Commercial cigarettes are treated to make the PH the same as lung tissue (free-base) and thus more addictive.
Comparing max dose items to make it level:
Oral (gum), topical patch, or smoke look like they deliver the same effective dose of nicotine (what gets in the blood stream.)
5.25 max dose (21 4 mg) gum per day = 1 daily max dose patch (21 mg) = 10 cigs (20 mg total at 2mg each) per day
The difference will be in the addictive quality. The smoke will ramp up your level fast. That reinforces the addictive response more. It's like the difference between cocaine and crack (or free-based) cocaine. Commercial cigarettes are treated to make the PH the same as lung tissue (free-base) and thus more addictive.
PortlandAllen
New member
I know crap all about molecules.
I'm simply repeating what the studies say.I am making no claim, except that I'm accurately representing what I read. If you have a problem with what those scientists reported, then you should report them to the peer review journals they published in. You are claiming they are reporting incorrect results. Get on them about that.
PortlandAllen
New member
Ah, you seem to think that arguing with me is arguing with the scientists who did the studies. I keep trying to point you to the studies. I'm sure they will be embarrassed to know they are violating the laws of the universe. But crestfallen as they will be, it's for their own good. Let us know how that goes.
Renew1
Legend
They didn't present this argument to me.
YOU did.
Are you "crestfallen"?
Their one study doesn't magically negate all of the others on routes of administration.
Magic is Cool. It's just not Real.
Wallet55
Member
Well you said it would work transdermally based off ''what you read''. You should maybe read about the differences between human skin and mouse skin? Here, I'll help you : Human skin has a THICK LAYER of epidermis AND dermis, meanwhile the mouse has a very thin one (who would have thought). Molecules have more chance of being absorbed if there's less resistance and less distance to travel, through much less thicker membranes. Wouldn't you think? So in any case, there's a reason why big molecules aren't used wtih transdermal carriers.I know crap all about molecules.
I am making no claim, except that I'm accurately representing what I read. If you have a problem with what those scientists reported, then you should report them to the peer review journals they published in. You are claiming they are reporting incorrect results. Get on them about that.
By the way, do you work for AgeForce? Or another company selling a bs ''healing patch'' with bpc-157
PortlandAllen
New member
I do not work for or have any financial interest in the company AgeForce neither do I have an opinion on their product.
Without posted 3rd party product testing, I'd be reluctant to buy a supplement from any company, especially one where the raw materials are expensive. So, that's an unknown. I'm not trying to dis Age Force--that's just a general good practice.
Without posted 3rd party product testing, I'd be reluctant to buy a supplement from any company, especially one where the raw materials are expensive. So, that's an unknown. I'm not trying to dis Age Force--that's just a general good practice.