I'm here for two probably contradictory comments.

The first is collagen: I'd love to see Lowe's take on recent peer review which says boosting oral collagen does appear to show signs of improved joint pain and skin resilience. Obviously modulated through how protein deprived you are, but for older people, eating enough protein can be an issue: it's not rapidly absorbed so you need 3 squares a day to get to the higher numbers. Collagen powders and vitamin C (oj) at breakfast might kick start this.

The second contradictory point is that this entire thread makes me want to shout GELL MAN AMNESIA because it's an exercise in otherwise intelligent people who can distinguish between anecdata, their personal experience and some cold hard facts in their core field, but not when it's self injecting unknown chemicals from China bought off-script.

▲ mapotofu 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I want to point out your own contradictory comments about absorption and specifically mentioning a typically highly processed food (orange juice), one which has been stripped of its natural fibers and flavors.

That age group (and all others) should be eating real/whole fruit or having the juice fresh (I.e. just juiced). They would be better served getting this advice than creating more anxiety about protein intake.

	▲	elil17 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Is there any reason to think that freshly squeezed juice is chemically different from, for example, frozen juice concentrate?

▲ flexagoon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For the first one, I assume you mean a systematic review, not a peer review? I guess you're talking about this one:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10180699/

It has a Mechanism section which explains that when collagen is digested, one of the products of that is Gly-Pro-Hyp, which is what has the effects. I don't think that conflicts anything in this post?

▲ staticassertion 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I assume they're referring to the brief bit in the post that indicates that oral ingestion leads to a breakdown that makes oral supplements of amino acids pointless. They say it very briefly and they don't really outright assert it, it's just a sort of implied aside.

▲ throwaway2037 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Here is the exact quote:

    > You’re not going to be taking these things orally... These mail-order peptides are injectable items.

Every single YouTube video and blog post I have read about peptites is exclusively about injectable supplements.

	▲	staticassertion 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's not the exact quote lol you cut out the exact part I was referring to. > because unless a really substantial amount of engineering has gone into it, any given peptide is going get the same treatment from your digestive system as a chicken breast does, i.e. a complete teardown > Every single YouTube video and blog post I have read about peptites is exclusively about injectable supplements. Collagen peptides, ghk-cu, and many other peptide supplements are often taken orally.

▲ A_D_E_P_T 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sweeping statements in biochemistry must be made with caution. It is well known that there are some small peptides that are absorbed following oral administration.

...BPC-157 itself is said to be among this class. As are certain milk tripeptides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactotripeptides

Interestingly enough, those two, as well as Gly-Pro-Hyp, are proline/hydroxyproline-rich, which might suggest that proline-rich small peptides are resistant to degradation in the gut.

Anyway, in general oral proteins and peptides are broken down prior to systemic absorption, but not always...

▲

oa335 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> It is well known that there are some small peptides that are absorbed following oral administration. ...BPC-157 itself is said to be among this class

Do you know of any studies that suggest BPC-157 absorption from gut?

	▲	A_D_E_P_T 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jor.21107 Among others. If you read the paper, it's actually apparent that there's little difference between i.p. and oral administration in terms of efficacy -- both were roughly equally effective in improving MCL ligament healing. Admittedly the paper's in rats -- as are 99% of the others -- as there's no incentive for anybody to run human trials.

▲

staticassertion 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm in agreement. It's the article that made the sweeping statement.

▲ IsTom 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> you need 3 squares a day to get to the higher numbers.

> Collagen powders

In that case if you're eating collagen powder you could be eating just regular protein powder then?