On Where to Inject BPC-157 — Joe Rogan & More Plates More Dates Clip Breakdown

But there's so much bad science out there, man. Like, it's a real problem. It's hot as shit. There's so much bad science out there, man. It almost gets to a point where you almost have to look at things through the lens of, does this sound like nonsense? Yeah. Well, and then where do you go? Like, who do you trust? Where do you go? Who do you trust? These are great questions in the growing, ever-popular YouTube ecosystem that dissects experimental drugs and compounds. But I will say, quite frankly, other than this small YouTube channel, I've got no skin in the game. I turn down affiliate offers, don't make money off peptide use, but I found extreme enjoyment in reading the papers and discussing their findings, rationale, and limitations, and today we've got another opportunity to do just that. Every time Derek of More Plates, More Dates goes on the Joe Rogan Experience, they always shoot the breeze about peptides. And I perk up in my chair. This episode, that discussion was less pervasive, but there's a tidbit of info that allows us to revisit a conversation we had in the past when Joe is discussing a minor Achilles tear that he has. And it's good we get to revisit this, because I'm in the process of trying to remake my older videos since when I started the channel, I was essentially recording my audio into a potato with a USB port. As you can guess by now, we're going to talk about BPC-157 once again. And as a reminder, I have over 20 videos on this peptide alone, so feel free to consult the channel and the playlist for deeper dives on more niche areas of interest, such as its interaction with mood, cognition, the musculoskeletal system, and so on. Because today we're going to focus on another highly debated subject matter, which is, what's the difference if it were to be injected locally into injured tissue versus subcutaneously or even intramuscularly? Here's a clip from the episode. So what's the rehab stack, is it any different than what you were already doing, or is it kind of like... BPC-157, TB-500, that's it. It's definitely improved. BPC-local in the Achilles? Yeah, yeah, yeah, right there. Or you just pinch the sub-Q area and kind of like... I shove it right in there. I think local is the way to go. I've done it subcutaneously, like in the side and love handles. It doesn't have the same effect. Yeah, if you can get it to the area, it's like, why not? Yeah, I think BPC-157 locally is the way to go. I've said over and over again that it's quite difficult to delineate experiences told by anecdote with the fact that BPC-157 has an impressive, controversial, and limited body of research. As we recently talked about, its founder authored over 80% of available data, and he echoes in published journal reports that it's essentially unlike any compound we've ever seen. We're led to believe it possesses an ability to heal, but not to scar, to act via angiogenesis and formation of new blood vessels, but to be anti-cancerous, and to cause blood clotting or blood thinning dependent on the context. And I'm not going to say that's all wrong, but I think any logical approach would cast at least a little doubt. Not that it doesn't work, but that it's not perfect or entirely pharmacokinetically and physiologically unique as its core researchers hold. Sure, there are many things I'm cynical about, but BPC-157 isn't necessarily one of them. But we still should treat it like every other drug that's ever existed, meaning it should obey basic physiology, circulation, and distribution. It doesn't get a free pass just because the claims around it sound exotic, even though it may be at heart. Keep in mind, I like Derek and respect him a lot, and Joe Rogan has his moments every now and then, but this is a discussion we should really have. When it comes to injectables, there's a few things to keep in mind. First is that subcutaneous injections are mainstay with a lot of peptides and proteins in clinical practice. Injecting the compound into a shallow layer of adipose tissue with lower vascularity than muscle intended for slower sustained systemic absorption. Systemic, meaning it enters the bloodstream and circulates through the body just as our blood and oxygen do, entering tissues to bind intended receptors via these different vessels. Smaller peptides and proteins travel via blood capillaries while larger proteins enter systemic circulation via the lymphatic system. However, several nuances merit a closer look. Sub-Q injection can often be incomplete, with variable bioavailability as low as 30% to as high as 80% depending on the molecule, the organism in which it's administered, and the specific sub-Q injection site. For instance, the abdomen and the arm tend to absorb better than the thigh. Intramuscular administration is, as the name suggests, into a muscle. This typically comes with greater bioavailability and faster absorption, which with short-lived peptides can be a double-edged sword. Because sub-Q areas are less vascular, they're more likely to favor slowed absorption. Additionally, IM is more likely to lend itself to pain with injections or nerve irritation. Finally, when people say to inject locally, they're talking about directly depositing the peptide into the damaged target tissue, with eventual systemic absorption depending on the the ecosystem surrounding that tissue the upside is that you'd theoretically load the target tissue with higher concentrations of the compound the downside is that people may be forced to make a choice based on the location of injury is it a high blood flow area like the forearm or a low vascularity area like the foot because greater blood supply would mean quicker absorption and quicker breakdown less supply could mean slower release and prolonged exposure but a factor that people don't seem to talk about is that depending on the location of the injury local injection can be quite tough oftentimes people have to have a level of anatomical knowledge that makes navigating to the target tissue possible on top of that is the needle depth enough to reach is it in the right spot i would surmise that many people who think they're injecting peptides locally with an insulin pin just end up inadvertently going sub-q or pinching a muscle some specific areas like the shoulder for instance could very well require imaging to identify the precise target location now let's put all this together bpc-157 it's a small peptide only 15 amino acids long despite overwhelming anecdote and popular use we've got a majority of data from dr predrag sicarich's group out of the university of zagreb with very little replicated information outside of that community the only clinical evals in humans have come out of a health optimization clinic and although they're good starting points they're a confounding factors that negate reliability all over the place in humans we don't even have data demonstrating basic pharmacokinetic information half-life mechanism short and long-term side effects nothing most of the preclinical data has utilized local injection intramuscular use and intraperitoneal administration into the abdominal cavity and based off these preclinical studies we have it does appear likely bpc exerts its effects through recruitment of growth factors and signaling pathways to local tissues and since sicarich's research has shown benefits in most contexts it seems safe to say that local administration when done by a professional researcher at least holds a good preclinical response this doesn't mean that when injected subcutaneously it's not viable just that a targeted approach seems to work too but because of its size and the absence of high quality human pharmacokinetic data local injection remains theoretically attractive for sustained tissue exposure the question that still needs to be answered is whether prolonged exposure actually leads to greater therapeutic efficacy research hasn't looked at peptide concentrations within tissues over time after the injection which prevents a definitive answer at this point so i would imagine that when it eventually comes to light the true answer will be context and location dependent if somebody's prescribed bpc157 to reach a deep tissue injury subcutaneous or intramuscular injection will likely be a more feasible approach to save poking prodding and a surgical understanding of anatomy but for superficial tissues in lower blood flow areas i would guess local will be the way to go we're essentially guessing based off preclinical data at this point that its half-life is under 30 minutes so definitely short-lived the idea with local would be to preserve that exposure over a longer period of time and hopefully continued research and investigation in humans will continue to clear up this answer as well i know my answer isn't discrete and that's because it's not a yes or no question so my hope is that the video provided you with a better understanding of the important nuance that makes addressing this question based off the current body of literature hard as hell but i tried and i appreciate your time let me know your thoughts in the description below if you're looking for additional ways to support the channel i have a patreon available i'll link it below so you can take a look see if it's something you're interested in joining and i also have a 20 page educational guide on bpc157 breaking down all of the research done on the compound most importantly i want to thank you for taking the time to watch this video i really appreciate it i hope you have a great day take care cut to the chase evidence-based pull up a chair let's get this straight peptide buddy he's your peptide