Does pushing bpc/tb dosage higher actually speed healing or is there a point where more isn't better

Nobody has actually mapped a dose response curve for BPC in humans so anyone telling you 3000mcg is optimal is guessing same as you are. Most of these peptides probably work through receptor mediated pathways, and receptors saturate. Past a certain occupancy more ligand doesn't do anything except circulate and get cleared. The rat studies people cite for BPC scale doses by body weight in ways that don't translate cleanly to a flat human mcg number anyway, so the 3x guy isn't following any real logic, he's just extrapolating from vibes with extra zeros.

More isn't healing, it's just more needles mate.

I've got guys who think doubling their dose will fix a program that has them doing nothing but rest and ice. Tendon needs progressive load to remodel, that's the actual driver. If your loading plan is weak, more peptide just means you're pinning harder while doing the same soft rehab. Fix the program first.

Has anyone actually compared 1000 vs 2000 head to head on the same injury though

Bumping this, curious too.

Worth remembering reconstituted vials have a practical ceiling for how much volume you can inject before it's just uncomfortable, that alone limits how far people can push before it becomes impractical, separate from whether it's doing more.

Pulled up my own log after reading this thread. Across my four years of on and off tendon issues, the blocks where I ran a higher dose didn't get me to my pain free benchmarks any faster than the blocks at a lower dose, the variable that actually moved my numbers was consistency of loading and sleep. If there's a ceiling effect like Louis is describing that would track with what I'm seeing. Starting to think past a certain point you're just paying more for the same curve.

Your follow-up about the spreadsheet is useful: the higher blocks didn't reach your pain-free benchmarks sooner, while loading and sleep changed too. AchillesAnna reports a good return to running without escalating. Those are two experiences worth hearing, but they can't establish where a dose-response curve levels off. The published human paper often brought into this discussion doesn't answer the higher-versus-lower question either. In a 2021 chart review, researchers reached 16 knee-pain patients by phone; 14 reported relief after BPC-157 alone or BPC-157 with TB4. That's an encouraging signal, but there was no untreated comparison group, no randomized higher-versus-lower comparison, and no standardized assessment of function. It measured reported knee pain, not how quickly an Achilles tendon healed. Original paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34324435/ So I wouldn't turn either that result or the receptor-saturation idea into an established 'more stops helping here' threshold. A study would need comparable injuries, assigned treatment groups and the same predefined recovery measurements to answer your question convincingly. I contribute to PeptideWHY. For help picking apart those study claims, check out https://peptidewhy.com/phase-1-2-3-peptide-studies-explained/ — section 2 walks through the participants, comparison and measured outcome. It isn't a dosing guide.

Nobody needs a link dump to tell them a phone survey of 16 people isn't a dosing answer. We already knew that. Load the tendon, sleep, be consistent, that's the whole game.