Yes there is some oral bioavailability, but for non-stomach the standard BPC-157 is not optimal. SubQ injections closest to the site of injury are preferred.
And what the bodybuilders are doing is useful because they find the effective human range for healthy adults. Obviously when it comes to growing muscle etc, it is usually the higher ends, but on the same forums are more modest users.
Most molecules are designed for people with diseases or disorders. For example, some of the SARMS were created to combat muscle wasting disorder for post-chemotherapy patients (cachexia). And before they got to cancer patients there are Phase I trials in healthy people, but they are not trying to actively gain healthy tissue with exercise. They are just taking it for safety/pharmacokinetics.
So when healthy bodybuilders/biohackers take these molecules while working out and eating right, we can see the true potential of whether or not the molecule is effective. One of the molecules was considered a failure because it could not overcome the effects of the radiation enough. The patients grew pounds of muscle, but it was not enough compared to the fact that their muscle is wasting away from chemotherapy. It is more germane to me whether it can work on a healthy person optimizing its effects/dosing/timing, what you call "confounding variables."
The bodybuilders are helping us explore these molecules and many times doing it in an open source, collaborative way. They will have blood work done and post it before and after the run. The community evaluates their bloodwork and can validate whether it worked, if the source was good etc. It's pretty impressive real-time, science experiments. And if you hang around and read all the science and see enough of those n=1 studies, the patterns and consensus that emerge are pretty clear.
And going full circle, it is helpful beyond the bodybuilders because when I go over to the longevity forums and what not, I see the older people whose bodies are wasting away naturally (sarcopenia) looking to do something closer to the original investigation of the molecule. They will usually do what is on the lower range of what the bodybuilders do.
So those older people are benefiting from the experiments and commercial availability of the more experimental and risk-taking bodybuilders. However, you'd be surprised because some of the people who are rapidly declining in physical and mental health have a similar risk profile of a bodybuilder who only cares about next month's competition.
> Yes there is some oral bioavailability, but for non-stomach the standard BPC-157 is not optimal.
Please post proof from a study. Some studies used the oral route in animals if I recall.
> SubQ injections closest to the site of injury are preferred.
According to who?
> The bodybuilders are helping us explore these molecules and many times doing it in an open source, collaborative way. They will have blood work done and post it before and after the run. The community evaluates their bloodwork and can validate whether it worked, if the source was good etc. It's pretty impressive real-time, science experiments. And if you hang around and read all the science and see enough of those n=1 studies, the patterns and consensus that emerge are pretty clear.
We have no way of knowing who these people are, what they are taking, or if they are underground labs posting to drum up business. The companies developing SARMs want to test them on people that have cancer cachexia. So yes, researching with bodybuilders is completely useless.
And what the bodybuilders are doing is useful because they find the effective human range for healthy adults. Obviously when it comes to growing muscle etc, it is usually the higher ends, but on the same forums are more modest users.
Most molecules are designed for people with diseases or disorders. For example, some of the SARMS were created to combat muscle wasting disorder for post-chemotherapy patients (cachexia). And before they got to cancer patients there are Phase I trials in healthy people, but they are not trying to actively gain healthy tissue with exercise. They are just taking it for safety/pharmacokinetics.
So when healthy bodybuilders/biohackers take these molecules while working out and eating right, we can see the true potential of whether or not the molecule is effective. One of the molecules was considered a failure because it could not overcome the effects of the radiation enough. The patients grew pounds of muscle, but it was not enough compared to the fact that their muscle is wasting away from chemotherapy. It is more germane to me whether it can work on a healthy person optimizing its effects/dosing/timing, what you call "confounding variables."
The bodybuilders are helping us explore these molecules and many times doing it in an open source, collaborative way. They will have blood work done and post it before and after the run. The community evaluates their bloodwork and can validate whether it worked, if the source was good etc. It's pretty impressive real-time, science experiments. And if you hang around and read all the science and see enough of those n=1 studies, the patterns and consensus that emerge are pretty clear.
And going full circle, it is helpful beyond the bodybuilders because when I go over to the longevity forums and what not, I see the older people whose bodies are wasting away naturally (sarcopenia) looking to do something closer to the original investigation of the molecule. They will usually do what is on the lower range of what the bodybuilders do.
So those older people are benefiting from the experiments and commercial availability of the more experimental and risk-taking bodybuilders. However, you'd be surprised because some of the people who are rapidly declining in physical and mental health have a similar risk profile of a bodybuilder who only cares about next month's competition.