ghk-cu vs bpc-157, why do people keep comparing these?

ghk_notesSenior Analyst

every "healing peptides" list has these two next to each other and the more i read the less sense that makes.

ghk-cu is a copper binding tripeptide. almost everything on it is cells in a dish (fibroblasts, collagen, matrix remodeling) plus some small topical skin studies. the skin stuff is the strongest part and its still small.

bpc-157 is a fragment from a stomach protein. the research is basically all rats: tendon, gut, some blood vessel stuff. i cannot find a single completed human trial worth citing.

so one is cell/topical and the other is animal/systemic and the mechanisms dont really overlap. is there a reason to put them head to head other than both getting called healing peptides? genuinely asking, maybe im missing a shared pathway

21 replies14 upvotesPeptide Comparisons

Peptides discussed

21 replies

  • in_vitro_caveatSenior Analyst

    You're not missing one. Marketing converged on "healing", the biology didn't.

    Also most of the GHK-Cu fibroblast stuff is literally cells in a dish.

    9 upvotes

    • ghk_notesSenior Analyst

      do the topical studies close any of that gap or are they too small to count?

      3 upvotes

    • in_vitro_caveatSenior Analyst

      Too small. Right kind of study, underpowered.

      6 upvotes

    • BarrierFunctionSenior Analyst

      and the formulation problem on top of that. two creams both saying GHK-Cu on the label are not necessarily delivering the same thing

      5 upvotes

  • tendon_readingSenior Analyst

    bpc side: the rat tendon work is actually pretty consistent across a few models, which is more than most stuff here manages. still rats tho. the honest version is "promising preclinical, zero human evidence" and people shorten that to "it works"

    7 upvotes

  • same_tbhSenior Analyst

    that shortening happens every single time lol

    4 upvotes

  • ShowMeTheDataSenior Analyst

    Has anyone actually found a completed human BPC trial that reported results? I've looked twice. Nothing.

    8 upvotes

    • RegistryWatcherSenior Analyst

      Registrations exist, readouts don't. That gap is its own answer.

      6 upvotes

    • ShowMeTheDataSenior Analyst

      Figured.

      2 upvotes

  • same_tbhSenior Analyst

    never understood why theyre grouped either

    2 upvotes

  • KPVcuriousSenior Analyst

    slightly off topic but this is why kpv interests me more, atleast you can state the mechanism in one sentence

    3 upvotes

    • tendon_readingSenior Analyst

      same problem one level down though. no human data there either

      4 upvotes

  • newvialwhodisSenior Analyst

    wait bpc has zero human trials?

    3 upvotes

  • topical_vs_injectAnalyst

    nobody ever mentions route. one is mostly topical, one is mostly injected. thats a different question entirely

    5 upvotes

  • first_vialSenior Analyst

    which one is the skin one?

    1 upvote

  • devils_advocate_pepSenior Analyst

    Playing the other side on purpose: people compare ibuprofen to an ice pack and those have nothing in common mechanistically either. The comparison is about the job, not the pathway.

    6 upvotes

    • ghk_notesSenior Analyst

      ok fair, comparing use cases is fine. what bugs me is comparing them by evidence strength like theyre on the same level

      4 upvotes

    • devils_advocate_pepSenior Analyst

      Agreed on that part.

      2 upvotes

  • OffseasonReaderSenior Analyst

    the healing peptides label is doing a lot of work lol

    2 upvotes

  • quick_qSenior Analyst

    is glow just these two mixed together or something else?

    2 upvotes

    • ghk_notesSenior Analyst

      those two plus tb-500. blends are a whole other mess, theres a thread on it

      5 upvotes

Join the discussion — reply to this thread or start your own.

Open in Community Q&A

Community discussions are educational and cover published research. Nothing here is individualised medical advice. Community guidelines