PDA (Pentadeca-Arginate) compared to BPC-157

Bringing this one back up, as it's something I'm curious about too — especially the oral version, given the claim that it beats plain BPC on bioavailability.
 
yeddie said:

Bringing this one back up, as it's something I'm curious about too — especially the oral version, given the claim that it beats plain BPC on bioavailability.
Click to expand...
Seems like it's just us in this group!
 
I went the compounding route for it. From what I could observe, it performed no differently than BPC. As I had it described to me, the molecule is essentially the same as BPC, except an additional arginine is tacked on so that, on paper, it counts as a separate compound and gets around the rules.
 
Tron Carter said:

I went the compounding route for it. From what I could observe, it performed no differently than BPC. As I had it described to me, the molecule is essentially the same as BPC, except an additional arginine is tacked on so that, on paper, it counts as a separate compound and gets around the rules.
Click to expand...
From what I came across, the reason given was stability.
 
Craig Koniver discusses his practice's move from BPC to PDA in this podcast interview. It looks like a way around the FDA's change in BPC's status. During a separate interview, he mentioned that PDA has better oral availability compared to BPC.
 
Reviving this thread.

PDA Pentadeca Arginate came up during a recent chat, and since it was completely new to me, I began looking into it a bit. It didn't take long to come across the link between BPC-157 and PDA. During that conversation, someone passed along a link to a sports research website that claimed PDA is a better peptide formulation than BPC-157, citing both greater stability and greater bioavailability.

If PDA really is a more advanced form of BPC-157, and given how widely BPC-157 is used and how popular it has become, then why have I never seen PDA on any vendor list? Why hasn't it taken off? Does anyone know where to get it?

And is it fair for me to assume this is yet another case where injectable efficacy has been studied less than oral efficacy, and we're simply going off anecdotes when we assume it works?
 
Back
Top