Andrew Huberman· PhD
I think that is a bad idea
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
I think that is a bad idea
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I would not use them chronically. If you have a major injury, you might consider cycling on and off of them, but these are not something that I think humans should be using chronically for regeneration, for healing from gym sessions or athletic endeavors.
The problem with BPC 157 is it's really only been studied in rats in Croatia from a single research group. There's only one human study and it only included two people. TB500 is worse. There's zero human data for this one.