www.sciencedirect.com
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?
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?
It’s 500 Dalton’s.
Let me/us know how it works, good luck!
I will as soon as it arrives.
How do they get past the 500 dalton rule?
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.
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?
What a joke of an answer, they didn't answer anything
Yeah, I wrote them back... I informed them, unless they used a micro-fiber matrix they are full of it.
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.
But that site is for animals (veterinary health). Isn't it dangerous to take supps meant for animals?
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.
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.
That makes no sense.
I'd definitely only trust the injection method after reading more. Unfortunate the oral method didn't even help digestion
Yeah, I was hoping for some gut healing. I haven't noticed anything yet tho
I’m in the uk too, what brand are you taking?
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.
Go to pubmed.gov (the U.S. NIH web site showing summaries from virtually all published health studies) and search 'BPC-157'
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
link.springer.com
I'm not making the claim. I'm just pointing out what's reported in studies.
I'm not making up a claim.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.
For BPC-157? Care to point any of these countless studies out? I only see 140 total studies concerning BPC-157, not countless.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.
Care to point out how BPC has magical properties to change reality, like no other compound has?
So you are saying Nicotine is EQUALLY EFFECTIVE via the three different routes?
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...
It's an example of the difference between heroin and nicotine. I'm not suggesting smoking BPC-157.
You're right.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.
I know crap all about molecules.
I'm simply repeating what the studies say.
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.
They didn't present this argument to me.
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.
