BPC-157 stacking data: where did the 120-enrollment trial go?

The 120 enrollment one is the bit I can't square either. If it exists in the raw list, where are the posted outcomes? I've looked and only see blanks.

Blanks are noraml. Unknown status isn't a conspiracy.

I get that, but the gummy trial is completed and still no raw data. That's what bugs me. Stacking logs are all we have, and they're messy.

Messy is right. Worth knowing before comparing the BPC-157 + TB-500 stack: in the n=1 reports floating around, CRP often doesn't budge at all, while sleep and range of motion do improve. Hard to say whether that's the TB or just time off.

Did you run baseline CRP before the stack?

The only hard BPC-157 numbers I can find are preclinical/expression stuff: 2% inoculum, 40 g/L soybean peptone, 80 g/L glucose, about threefold reporter expression, and ammonium sulfate cuts at 50% and 60%. That doesn't tell us anything about stacking in humans.

The rat ulcer model had 75.3% inhibition, which people quote constantly, but it's still a rat ethanol model. I'd love a human PK/PD bridge, especially for something like TB-500.

Until then, trial-enrollment tea leaves and self-logs are mostly noise. Which doesn't mean useless, just not the same as a controlled recovery endpoint.

Agreed on the rat model thing. 75.3% gets quoted like human data. Same with the gummy trial - no results, but people still build stacks around it.

I emailed the registry contact for the 120 one last year and got nothing back. If anyone has a screenshot of a results tab, post it. Otherwise I'm treating the 40/42/30/120 list as just enrollment counts, not efficacy.

Six weeks of the same log, same training, same everything, and the only number that genuinely moved was morning resting HR, down 4 bpm—and I'd bet that's from killing the 9pm phone scroll, not anything else in the picture. Scale dropped 3 lbs in week two then sat dead flat for eleven days, which nearly made me quit logging altogether, except the waist tape went 36.5 to 35.25 over that same stretch, so the scale was just messing with me.

Gym side is messier than I expected: squat got back to pre-tweak numbers around week five, but sleep is what I'd actually credit, 5.5 to 6.75 hours and everything downstream followed. Real question though—did you get a proper baseline on the markers you're comparing before anything changed, or did tracking start after week one?

Because if it's the latter you're comparing a moving target to nothing, and a full month went by that way before any logging happened.

Same boat with tracking—I log HRV, sleep latency, a 1–10 DOMS score, and a few barbell numbers. Weirdly, sleep latency tightened up first, but strength stayed flat until I fixed protein/timing and took a deload.

For the 120-person record: does it list actual enrollment or just estimated? If it was estimated and then withdrawn/terminated, that might explain no results.

I’d also check whether its primary outcome was pain score vs. functional recovery—mixing that with the smaller recovery-marker trials may be apples/oranges. Did anyone save the archive snapshot?

Recovery tracking is a mess for me because I do residential plumbing—crawlspace days and hauling pipe wreck the numbers. The only way it got useful was tagging work days separately from gym days.

Otherwise my DOMS and HRV just show how many hours I spent under sinks. On the 120-person one, has anybody looked at the History of Changes tab rather than the contact?

Sometimes enrollment gets revised down or the status flips to terminated/withdrawn, which could be why results never posted. I can't interpret that stuff, but that tab is usually where the skeletons are.

Hi, brand new here and sorry if this is obvious. I’m only in week one, so I don’t have my own stack data yet. Has anyone checked the 120 record’s status/history tab against the smaller trials?

I noticed some registry entries show a big target number but then get withdrawn or never actually start enrollment. Could the 120 one be one of those, rather than a completed study that never posted?

I’m just trying to learn which records are real finished trials versus placeholders before I compare anyone’s notes.

I chased that 120-enrollment entry too. If it’s the one I pulled up, it was an older GI/ulcerative-colitis study under a code name—not a recovery or gym-performance trial—so I stopped waiting for sleep or lift data from it. Has anyone found a results tab, or is it just completed with nothing posted?

My tracking is pretty low-tech: 25-minute after-dinner walks, whether I can dice onions without my thumb aching, and stair stiffness the next morning. Honestly the walks have done more for my mood than any spreadsheet. Empty-nester cooking adventures are mostly me trying not to wreck my hands before dinner.

Check whether that 120 is Estimated vs Actual Enrollment in the registry history. I’d also look at WHO ICTRP and the sponsor’s publication page—sometimes it surfaces as a safety-only abstract under a different title.

If completion date slipped and status went Unknown, no results will post. Sharp question: does the 120 record list a primary endpoint of adverse events, or a functional recovery score? If safety-only, it won’t answer your stacking question.

I track orthostatic HR and pain-free ROM after squats, not just DOMS, because those moved before my subjective recovery did.

I haven’t seen the 120-person one post results either. Worth checking if its primary outcome was safety/labs rather than recovery or sleep—if so, even completed data won’t match what we’re tracking here.

My chaotic-kid version: I keep an index card in the snack drawer and mark late-night raids. That number moves way more with sick days and school chaos than any stack variable.

Did the 120 trial list a completion date, or just “active, not recruiting”? If it’s the latter, it might be stalled rather than unpublished.

@laura_m75 said:

it might be stalled rather than unpublished.

If it’s the 120-enrollment record I’m thinking of, it’s marked completed with zero posted results—check the “Has Results” filter and Last Update Posted date. Sponsors rarely publish once the thread moves on.

I pre-register my own stack metrics before adding anything: 3-day rolling median for resting HR, grip strength, and sleep efficiency. Otherwise every good week is just confounding with extra steps. What’s the NCT ID?

I’ll pull the primary/secondary outcomes and see if it was even powered for recovery markers.

On-the-road confounder here: my only reliable recovery metric is “time zones crossed vs. hotel pillow quality.” A three-flight week makes any trend look like turbulence. For that 120-person listing, does the registry entry actually say “completed, no results posted,” or is it “withdrawn/terminated”?

That distinction usually explains the vanishing act.

I’ve also seen trials get renamed under a slightly different intervention and fall off people’s spreadsheets. If anyone has the NCT number, I’d love to see whether it’s still active-not-recruiting or just dead.

I might be on the wrong NCT, but the 120-enrollment record I pulled up says completed, results blank, last update 2021. I’ve started logging grip strength and a 3-flight stair test instead of soreness scales, since my gym soreness is too noisy with 12-hour shifts.

Weirdly, my sleep efficiency only ticked up when I front-loaded protein and cut late caffeine, not on stack weeks. Did anyone find an abstract or conference poster for that 120-person one, or is it just an enrollment number and a dead link?

I’m also tracking shipping delays for my next order, but that’s separate.

I went down the ClinicalTrials.gov rabbit hole last night. The only 120-enrollee record I could pull is marked completed but has no results posted and hasn't been updated in over a year, so it's basically ghost data.

The outcome measures were mostly safety/labs anyway, not sleep or gym performance. For tracking, I added time-to-soreness onset and how many times I wake after 3am—both moved before my lifts did, weirdly. Did you save the NCT number?

I want to see if the completion date lines up with that gap in the literature.