Resistance training has 3,954 randomized-trial papers, creatine 732, sunscreen 321, and BPC-157 none, while BPC-157 draws 308K Wikipedia pageviews a year. Counted 30 October 2026 from public registries; these count papers tagged as trials, not effect or quality.
Whitepill finding
On 30 October 2026, PubMed held 3,954 randomized-trial-typed papers on resistance training, 732 on creatine supplementation and 321 on sunscreen, against none on BPC-157, a compound English Wikipedia readers opened about 308K times in the year to 30 September 2026. These figures count papers tagged as trials, not effect or quality.
The short version
They sayBPC-157 is as well studied as creatine.
Creatine has 732 papers typed as randomized trials on PubMed. BPC-157 has 0. See the receipt
They sayLots of trials means it works.
A trial count is depth of record. It does not measure the size of an effect, the quality of a study or anyone's safety. See the receipt
They sayEveryone is talking about it, so it's proven.
BPC-157 draws about 308K Wikipedia pageviews a year with no trial-typed papers behind it. Attention is not evidence. See the receipt
A way to put very different self-improvement topics on one scale: how many randomized controlled trials the public record holds for each. The scale is deliberately blunt.
Resistance training by a wide margin, with 3,954 trial-typed papers, then creatine supplementation (732), sleep extension or hygiene (410) and sunscreen (321). Skin and hair care sits in the middle: topical tretinoin 210, minoxidil for hair loss 147, microneedling 138 and topical niacinamide 52. Tretinoin is a prescription medicine in most forms; it is listed here for education, and a clinician decides who should use it.
Reviews tell the same story. Resistance training has 1,852 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, creatine 173, sunscreen 98, and BPC-157 1.
Not closely. Creatine draws the most Wikipedia attention and also has a deep trial record, which is how it should work.
BPC-157 draws about 308K pageviews a year, more than minoxidil or sunscreen, with no trials typed as such behind it, and melanotan II draws 112K against a handful.
The pageview data comes from the Wikimedia pageviews tool, which is secondary, derived data: a rough measure of curiosity, not of use, and not search volume. That gap between attention and evidence is the reason this site exists.
1. A big number means a deep record, not a big benefit. 2. A zero means "no trials of this type found", which is different from "tested and failed". 3. Check what the trials measured. Hair counts, skin scores and strength tests are different outcomes. 4. Prefer a systematic review to a single trial. 5. Prescription items on this ladder (tretinoin) are listed for education; a clinician decides, not a page.
At the bottom, with 226 papers and no trials typed as such, though ClinicalTrials.gov lists 4 interventional studies matching the name, which we have not assessed. Its regulatory status is moving and has its own page: see BPC-157: status, trials and harms, and for how to read FDA's category labels, how FDA's peptide categories work. Sunscreen has its own regulator page at FDA.
Each count is the number of PubMed records matching a published title and abstract query plus a publication-type filter ("Randomized Controlled Trial", or "Systematic Review" or "Meta-Analysis"), read 30 October 2026. Queries are broad and will include some off-topic papers.
Publication-type tags can be missing or loose, so treat the counts as depth of record, not exact tallies, and as papers tagged as trials, not effect or quality. Pageviews are English Wikipedia article views summed from 1 October 2025 to 30 September 2026. Nothing here measures effect size, study quality or safety, and nothing is medical advice.
resistance training[tiab]creatine[tiab] AND supplementation[tiab](sleep extension[tiab] OR sleep hygiene[tiab])(sunscreen[tiab] OR sunscreens[tiab])tretinoin[tiab] AND (skin[tiab] OR acne[tiab] OR photoaging[tiab])minoxidil[tiab] AND (alopecia[tiab] OR hair[tiab])microneedling[tiab]niacinamide[tiab] AND (topical[tiab] OR skin[tiab])"BPC-157"[tiab] OR "BPC 157"[tiab] OR "Body Protection Compound-157"[tiab]A comparison of how many randomized controlled trials PubMed holds for each self-improvement topic, counted 30 October 2026. It measures depth of the trial record, not whether anything works.
Resistance training, with 3,954 trial-typed papers on PubMed on 30 October 2026, then creatine supplementation with 732.
None are typed as randomized or clinical trials on PubMed as of 30 October 2026, out of 226 papers matching the name. ClinicalTrials.gov lists four interventional studies matching it, which we have not assessed.
No. It means the record is deep. Effect size, study quality and your own situation are separate questions, and a clinician is the right person for them.
They are open data that anyone can re-run, which makes them a rough proxy for curiosity. They are secondary, derived data and a rough measure of curiosity, not of use. They are not search volume and we do not treat them as such.
The best-tested things are the least glamorous: training, sleep, sunscreen, creatine. The most discussed thing here, BPC-157, has no trials typed as such behind it. Use the count to decide where to look first, then ask a clinician about you.