What did @burakkingifbbpro actually say?
Brock King, an IFBB pro bodybuilder, described his off-season approach as focused on staying healthy while training hard. He said he works with a provider named Gigi from Relive in Dallas, Texas, who reviews his bloodwork and assembles a personalized plan. His stated goals: "recover better, sleep better." The stack he named includes BPC-157, TB-500, NAD+, and glutathione (he said "Luthion," which is almost certainly a pronunciation of glutathione). He did not claim any of these substances cure a disease, treat an injury by name, or replace medical care. He framed everything as optimization and health monitoring under provider supervision.
To his credit, this is a relatively restrained presentation for bodybuilding content. He did not cite specific doses, did not make dramatic injury-reversal claims, and repeatedly pointed to a licensed provider overseeing the protocol. That context matters.
Does the science back this up?
Partially, but the gap between animal data and human clinical evidence is real and worth naming plainly. BPC-157 has compelling rodent data for tissue repair but zero completed randomized controlled trials in humans as of 2024. TB-500's active fragment (Thymosin Beta-4) has been studied in cardiac and wound healing contexts, but human trials are limited and not specific to athletic recovery.
NAD+ precursor supplementation, typically via NMN or NR rather than IV NAD+ directly, has stronger human evidence. Studies including Yoshino et al. (2021, Science) showed metabolic improvements in postmenopausal women with NMN supplementation. IV NAD+ as a clinical infusion is used in some longevity practices, but the evidence base for athletic performance specifically is thin.
Glutathione, when administered IV, has documented antioxidant effects and some clinical utility in specific populations. Its role in healthy athletes as a recovery agent is plausible mechanistically but not well-supported by large controlled trials. The science here is not fabricated. It is just much earlier-stage than the confident framing often implies.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
He got the framing mostly right. Tying peptide use to bloodwork monitoring and a licensed provider is exactly how responsible off-label peptide use should look, at least structurally. The claim that BPC-157 and TB-500 support recovery is not invented, but calling it a settled fact overstates what human evidence shows.
The bigger issue is what is left unsaid. BPC-157 is not FDA-approved for any indication. It is frequently compounded, and compounded peptides carry real quality control concerns. The FDA has taken action against certain compounded BPC-157 preparations. TB-500 is similarly unregulated for human use in the United States. These are not minor footnotes. An audience of 37,000 people watching an IFBB pro endorse a peptide stack will reasonably assume this is a safe, routine thing to do. That assumption needs to be challenged.
He also did not address the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) status of these compounds. TB-500 and BPC-157 appear on WADA's prohibited list, which is relevant context if any viewers are competitive athletes.
What should you actually know?
If you are considering a peptide stack like this one, the provider supervision Brock describes is not optional. It is the minimum floor. Bloodwork is a reasonable baseline, but it does not tell you everything about how compounded peptides will behave in your body, what is actually in the vial you receive, or how these compounds interact with other substances.
BPC-157 and TB-500 are not available as FDA-approved drugs. Any clinical use is off-label and typically involves compounded preparations. The National Institutes of Health and independent researchers have noted that preclinical peptide data frequently fails to translate to human outcomes at predicted magnitudes.
NAD+ and glutathione infusions are offered by many wellness clinics, but evidence for their use in otherwise healthy athletes is not robust. If a provider is recommending these, ask them to cite the specific studies informing the recommendation. If they cannot, that is useful information.
None of this means Brock's approach is reckless. It means you should not replicate it based on an Instagram video, even one from someone who clearly takes health seriously. A personalized bloodwork review with a qualified provider, as he described, is still the right starting point.