Name: CJC-1295 (No-DAC)/Ipamorelin
Brand: PeptidesDirect
SKU: PD-CJCIPA-STACK-20MG
Availability: InStock
Rating: 5.00 (2 reviews)

Question 1

What is the CJC-1295/Ipamorelin Mix?

Accepted Answer

The CJC-1295/Ipamorelin Mix is a pre-blended combination of CJC-1295 (a growth hormone-releasing hormone analog) and Ipamorelin (a selective growth hormone secretagogue). This combination is studied for its synergistic effects on growth hormone pathways.

Question 2

How should I store the CJC-1295/Ipamorelin Mix?

Accepted Answer

Store the lyophilized blend at -20°C for long-term storage or at 2-8°C for short-term use. After reconstitution, refrigerate at 2-8°C and use within 30 days. Avoid freeze-thaw cycles.

Question 3

What purity is the CJC-1295/Ipamorelin Mix?

Accepted Answer

Every batch of CJC-1295 (No-DAC)/Ipamorelin ships with a certificate of analysis from Janoshik Analytical, an independent third-party laboratory, at a minimum purity of 98%. We do not run a lab ourselves: the manufacturer commissions this test, and we pass the report on unchanged, with an online verification link on the product page. This batch also carries a second, independent test from Kovera Labs, commissioned outside the manufacturer. We also commissioned our own independent test at Liquilabs in Czechia, a full safety panel, and published it including a result that came back below the labelled amount.

Question 4

How do I reconstitute the CJC-1295/Ipamorelin Mix?

Accepted Answer

Add bacteriostatic water slowly along the vial wall. Gently swirl until fully dissolved - do not shake. Use 1-2 mL of bacteriostatic water per vial. The solution should be clear before use.

Question 5

How do CJC-1295 (no-DAC) and Ipamorelin work together, and has this exact pairing been tested in a study?

Accepted Answer

CJC-1295 no-DAC binds the pituitary GHRH receptor and Ipamorelin binds a separate receptor, the ghrelin receptor GHS-R1a, so the two peptides drive growth-hormone release through two different signalling routes. In a human study using the natural ligands, ghrelin combined with GHRH raised GH more than the sum of either alone (synergy, P less than 0.05), and a cell-based study found that activating the ghrelin receptor together with the GHRH receptor produced about twice the cAMP signal seen with GHRH-receptor activation alone (Hataya et al 2001, PMID 11549707; Cunha and Mayo 2002, PMID 12446584). Neither study used CJC-1295 or Ipamorelin by name, and no published trial has dosed the two peptides together as a pair, so the synergy is a documented mechanism class, not a direct measurement of this specific combination.

Question 6

Is the CJC-1295 in this vial the long-acting DAC form used in the human clinical trials, or the short-acting no-DAC form?

Accepted Answer

This product contains the short-acting no-DAC form, also called Modified GRF 1-29, not the long-acting DAC (albumin-conjugated) form. Nearly all published human data on CJC-1295 is for the DAC form: a Phase 1 trial in healthy adults tested it in four ascending single subcutaneous doses, and the paper's own safety analysis singles out 0.03 and 0.06 mg/kg as the doses at which it was safe and relatively well tolerated, the other two doses in that series are not given in the published abstract (Teichman et al 2006, PMID 16352683). No dedicated controlled human trial has been published for the no-DAC form specifically, its shorter activity profile is inferred from related GHRH 1-29 biology rather than measured directly. That distinction matters: the DAC trial's multi-day GH elevation and its estimated 5.8 to 8.1 day half-life describe a different molecule than the one in this vial.

Question 7

What has CJC-1295 and Ipamorelin actually been studied for, by species and model?

Accepted Answer

CJC-1295 has only been studied in its long-acting DAC form: two small Phase 1 trials measured GH and IGF-1 pharmacokinetics in healthy adults (Teichman et al 2006, PMID 16352683), alongside mechanistic rat and mouse work on that same DAC molecule. Ipamorelin has broader evidence: a founding pharmacology study in rats, swine and rat pituitary cells (Raun et al 1998, PMID 9849822), a rat model of post-surgical bowel dysfunction (Venkova et al 2009, PMID 19289567), a rat bone and muscle study (Andersen et al 2001, PMID 11735244), and one human Phase 2 trial for postoperative ileus after bowel surgery (Beck et al 2014, PMID 25331030). None of these studies were run on the no-DAC CJC-1295 variant actually sold here, and none tested the two peptides combined.

Question 8

What human dose and schedule information is reported for CJC-1295 DAC and Ipamorelin, and is there a published human protocol for combining them?

Accepted Answer

In the CJC-1295 DAC Phase 1 trial, healthy adults received ascending single subcutaneous doses, then two or three repeated subcutaneous doses given weekly or every two weeks, over a 28 to 49 day follow-up; the trial's own safety analysis identifies 0.03 and 0.06 mg/kg as the doses at which the compound was safe and relatively well tolerated, the rest of the dose-escalation series is not reported in the published abstract (Teichman et al 2006, PMID 16352683). In the Ipamorelin postoperative ileus trial, adult surgical patients received 0.03 mg/kg intravenously twice daily for up to 7 days (Beck et al 2014, PMID 25331030). Those are the amounts, routes and schedules the two trials administered, the DAC form of CJC-1295 by subcutaneous injection and Ipamorelin by IV infusion in hospitalized patients, neither matching how this no-DAC blend is sold. No human dosing protocol has been published for CJC-1295 no-DAC, for Ipamorelin outside that one hospital trial, or for the two peptides combined.

Question 9

What did these trials actually find, and how quickly did the effects appear?

Accepted Answer

In the CJC-1295 DAC trial, a single dose raised mean plasma GH 2- to 10-fold for 6 days or more and mean IGF-1 1.5- to 3-fold for 9 to 11 days, and repeated dosing kept IGF-1 above baseline for up to 28 days (Teichman et al 2006, PMID 16352683). The Ipamorelin postoperative ileus trial found the opposite kind of result: it did not meet its primary endpoint, median time to tolerating a solid meal was 25.3 hours with ipamorelin versus 32.6 hours with placebo, a difference that was not statistically significant (p = 0.15) (Beck et al 2014, PMID 25331030). One trial shows a fast, measurable hormonal effect, the other shows a plausible but statistically unproven clinical effect in humans.

Question 10

What side effects were actually reported in these studies?

Accepted Answer

In the CJC-1295 DAC trial, no serious adverse reactions were reported across the ascending-dose and repeated-dose arms, and the compound was described as safe and relatively well tolerated at the 0.03 and 0.06 mg/kg dose levels (Teichman et al 2006, PMID 16352683). In the Ipamorelin postoperative ileus trial, any treatment-emergent adverse event occurred in 87.5 percent of the ipamorelin group versus 94.8 percent of the placebo group, so the reported rate was not higher than placebo (Beck et al 2014, PMID 25331030). Both figures come from the individual peptides tested alone in small trials, not from any study of the two combined, and neither trial published a breakdown of which specific side effects occurred.

Question 11

What is not known about the safety of using CJC-1295 no-DAC and Ipamorelin together?

Accepted Answer

There is no long-term human safety data for either peptide: the CJC-1295 human evidence is two small trials from 2006, both of the DAC form and both co-authored by the compound's developer, and the Ipamorelin human evidence is a single 114-patient hospital trial for one surgical condition, not healthy volunteers. No trial has ever dosed CJC-1295 no-DAC and Ipamorelin together, so there is no safety data on the combination itself, only on each peptide separately and, for CJC-1295, only on a different (DAC) form than the one sold here. Neither peptide has published human data beyond a few weeks of exposure, so nothing is known about effects from use over months or years.

Question 12

Are CJC-1295 or Ipamorelin approved by the FDA, EMA, or any other regulator?

Accepted Answer

No. Neither CJC-1295 nor Ipamorelin has been approved by the FDA, the EMA, or any other medicines regulator, for any indication, in any form. The furthest either has progressed is a hospital-based Phase 2 proof-of-concept trial for Ipamorelin in postoperative ileus, which did not meet its primary endpoint (Beck et al 2014, PMID 25331030), and two small Phase 1 pharmacology trials for CJC-1295 DAC (Teichman et al 2006, PMID 16352683). Both peptides are sold here strictly for laboratory research use, not as medicines.

Question 13

Does ipamorelin increase food intake, and what do published studies report?

Accepted Answer

In a rat model of post-surgical bowel dysfunction, a single dose of ipamorelin had no measurable effect on food intake, but repeated dosing (four doses a day at 3-hour intervals over two days, at 0.1 or 1 mg/kg) significantly increased food intake, fecal output and body weight gain (Venkova et al 2009, PMID 19289567). That study was run in rats recovering from intestinal surgery, not in a general appetite-research setting, so it shows repeated ghrelin-receptor stimulation can increase feeding behaviour in that specific model, not a documented appetite effect in healthy humans. No human study of ipamorelin has measured appetite or food intake as an outcome.

Question 14

Does Ipamorelin raise cortisol, prolactin or other pituitary hormones the way older GH secretagogues like GHRP-6 do?

Accepted Answer

In the founding pharmacology study, ipamorelin released GH in rats and pigs with potency similar to GHRP-6, but unlike GHRP-6 and GHRP-2, it did not raise ACTH or cortisol above the levels seen with GHRH stimulation alone, even at doses more than 200-fold its GH-releasing ED50 (Raun et al 1998, PMID 9849822). None of the GH secretagogues tested in that study, including ipamorelin, changed FSH, LH, prolactin or TSH levels. This selectivity data comes from rat, swine and cell pharmacology, not from a human trial of ipamorelin's hormone effects.

Question 15

What does your own lab report show for this specific product, and who commissioned it?

Accepted Answer

Our most recent independently commissioned test, run at Liquilabs in Czechia on batch LYO-0260 (tested 2026-06-29), found 99.2 percent purity with 4.95 mg of CJC-1295 and 4.96 mg of Ipamorelin per 10 mg vial, and it passed its microbial and heavy-metals screens with an endotoxin reading of 0.001 EU per mg. We commissioned that Liquilabs test ourselves, separate from the manufacturer, the product also carries a manufacturer-commissioned Janoshik report and a community-submitted Kovera Labs report, and we publish all three, including the batch numbers and verification links, rather than only the most flattering one.

Question 16

Do the different lab reports for this product actually agree on how much CJC-1295 and Ipamorelin is in the vial?

Accepted Answer

No. The manufacturer's Janoshik report found 6.34 mg of CJC-1295 and 5.37 mg of Ipamorelin, both above the 5 mg per component label, a community-submitted Kovera Labs report found 4.93 mg of CJC-1295 and 5.81 mg of Ipamorelin, and our own independently commissioned Liquilabs report found 4.95 mg of CJC-1295 and 4.96 mg of Ipamorelin. Content assays on peptide blends routinely show batch-to-batch and lab-to-lab variance of this size, and all three reports are published on the product's lab-report panel with their verification links, so a specific batch can be checked rather than taken on trust.

Question 17

Beyond raising GH and IGF-1, has CJC-1295 or Ipamorelin been studied for anything else, like bone or muscle strength?

Accepted Answer

Ipamorelin, not CJC-1295, is the component with this data: in adult female rats given a bone-depleting glucocorticoid (methylprednisolone, 9 mg/kg per day) alongside ipamorelin (100 microg/kg, three times daily, subcutaneous, for 3 months), the combination increased periosteal bone formation rate roughly four-fold and increased maximum calf-muscle tetanic tension compared with the glucocorticoid alone (Andersen et al 2001, PMID 11735244). This is a rat model of glucocorticoid-induced bone and muscle loss, not a human study, and it tested ipamorelin alone, not the CJC-1295 no-DAC and Ipamorelin combination sold in this vial. No equivalent bone or muscle study exists for CJC-1295 no-DAC, or for either peptide in humans.

Question 18

Why is this sold as a single pre-mixed vial instead of two separate CJC-1295 and Ipamorelin vials, and can the ratio be changed?

Accepted Answer

The two peptides are freeze-dried together into one vial at a fixed 5 mg CJC-1295 to 5 mg Ipamorelin ratio, 10 mg total. Because the two components are lyophilized as a single powder before the vial is filled, that ratio cannot be changed after the fact. If a study needs a different CJC-1295-to-Ipamorelin ratio, that means reconstituting from separate single-component vials, we sell CJC-1295 no-DAC and Ipamorelin as standalone products for exactly that reason.

Question 19

For a 5 mg + 5 mg CJC-1295/Ipamorelin vial, does using 1 mL rather than 2 mL change its total peptide content or only its concentration?

Accepted Answer

Add bacteriostatic water slowly down the inside wall of the vial, then swirl gently, never shake: typical volumes for this 10 mg vial (5 mg CJC-1295 no-DAC plus 5 mg Ipamorelin) run 1 to 2 mL, and the amount chosen only sets the resulting concentration in mg per mL, it does not change the vial's total peptide content or the chemical stability of the solution. Once mixed, keep it refrigerated at 2 to 8°C, protected from light, and do not freeze it, since freezing and thawing a reconstituted peptide solution stresses it more than steady refrigeration does. Consistent with the 2 to 4 week window we use for our other reconstituted lyophilized peptides, this blend is best used within about 4 weeks of mixing. No published stability study has tested this specific two-peptide combination, so this is standard peptide-handling practice, not a study finding.

Question 20

Are CJC-1295 and Ipamorelin banned by WADA or other anti-doping bodies?

Accepted Answer

Yes, both components are banned. CJC-1295 no-DAC is named on the World Anti-Doping Agency's Prohibited List among the growth hormone-releasing hormones (GHRH) and their analogues, and Ipamorelin is named among the growth hormone secretagogues (GHS) and growth hormone releasing peptides (GHRPs), both within the same S2 category (Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors and Related Substances). Both classifications apply at all times, in and out of competition, not only on competition day. A standard workplace or medical drug panel, the kind that checks for THC, opioids, amphetamines or cocaine, does not screen for either peptide: detecting them requires a targeted LC-MS/MS assay of the kind WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratories use, not a routine test. This is a sports anti-doping fact, unrelated to either peptide's legal status as an unapproved research compound sold here.

Question 21

Is 'Mod GRF 1-29', the name some EU sellers use, the same molecule as the CJC-1295 no-DAC in this vial?

Accepted Answer

Yes. Mod GRF 1-29 is the same molecule as the CJC-1295 no-DAC in this vial: a 29-amino-acid modified GHRH(1-29) analog referred to elsewhere on this page as Modified GRF 1-29, the two names describe the identical short-acting peptide, not two different compounds. Some EU sellers default to the Mod GRF 1-29 name specifically because 'CJC-1295' on its own is ambiguous: it can mean either this short-acting no-DAC form or the long-acting, albumin-conjugated DAC form, which has a different half-life and a different published trial history, covered in the DAC-versus-no-DAC question above. Whichever label a vendor uses, checking the batch CoA for molecular identity, not just a purity percentage, is what actually confirms which of the two forms a given vial contains.

Question 22

How does this CJC-1295 (no-DAC) + Ipamorelin blend compare to Sermorelin, the other major GHRH-analog research peptide?

Accepted Answer

Sermorelin is GHRH(1-29), the shortest fragment of natural growth-hormone-releasing hormone that still fully activates the pituitary GHRH receptor. CJC-1295 no-DAC (also called Modified GRF 1-29) is a modified version of that same core sequence, engineered for greater resistance to enzymatic breakdown, but no dedicated human pharmacokinetic trial has measured its half-life directly, its shorter activity profile is inferred from related GHRH(1-29) biology rather than measured. Only the long-acting, albumin-bound CJC-1295 DAC form has published human half-life data, 5.8 to 8.1 days (Teichman et al 2006, PMID 16352683), a different molecule from the one in this vial. Ipamorelin adds a separate ghrelin-receptor mechanism sermorelin does not have. None of this makes one peptide 'better' for a person, only mechanistically distinct.

Question 23

Is it legal to buy CJC-1295 and Ipamorelin as a research chemical, and how does 'not FDA/EMA approved' differ from 'illegal to sell'?

Accepted Answer

Not being FDA- or EMA-approved as a medicine is a separate question from whether the sale itself is lawful. We sell both peptides strictly as unapproved research chemicals for laboratory and in-vitro use only, never as medicines and never for human consumption, and that framing is the basis on which the products are offered across the EU. That is narrower than our approval-status answer above, which covers regulatory approval only, not purchase or possession law. Rules on holding or importing research chemicals differ by country and can change over time, so we give no country-specific legal guarantee: buyers remain responsible for checking their own jurisdiction's import and research-substance regulations before ordering.

Question 24

Do the CJC-1295/Ipamorelin studies show any effect on sleep architecture (slow-wave/deep sleep), given growth hormone's known link to sleep stages?

Accepted Answer

Growth hormone's largest natural pulse occurs during slow-wave (deep) sleep, a well-established finding in sleep-endocrinology research generally, and the wider GHRH-receptor and ghrelin-receptor agonist literature has examined that GH-sleep relationship in other compounds. But no controlled human trial of this specific CJC-1295 no-DAC and Ipamorelin combination has measured sleep architecture, EEG slow-wave activity, or subjective sleep quality as an outcome, the existing human data for each component (Teichman et al 2006, PMID 16352683; Beck et al 2014, PMID 25331030) tracked hormone levels and a surgical-recovery endpoint, not sleep. Any 'users report better sleep' claims circulating for this blend are anecdotal, not data from a study that tested it.

Question 25

Does raising GH/IGF-1 with this blend carry any known effect on blood glucose or insulin sensitivity that a researcher should be aware of?

Accepted Answer

Growth hormone is counter-regulatory: sustained elevation is documented across the wider GH/GHRH pharmacology literature to raise fasting glucose and reduce insulin sensitivity, while IGF-1 elevation independently supports insulin sensitivity in some of that same literature, so the net direction is not one-way. No dedicated glucose or insulin-sensitivity outcome has been published for CJC-1295 no-DAC combined with Ipamorelin, and the published abstracts for the two existing human trials on the individual peptides (Teichman et al 2006, PMID 16352683; Beck et al 2014, PMID 25331030) do not report glucose or insulin data either. This is an acknowledged evidence gap, not a confirmed effect of the blend.

Question 26

Is there a published research protocol defining a dosing schedule or cycle length (days/weeks on and off) for this CJC-1295 no-DAC and Ipamorelin blend, or are the cycle tables circulating online just informal convention?

Accepted Answer

No controlled human trial has established a dosing schedule, cycle length, or time-of-day protocol for this CJC-1295 no-DAC and Ipamorelin combination. Our existing FAQ already reports what the individual peptides' published studies actually used for dose, route and duration ('What dose did the CJC-1295 and Ipamorelin studies actually use'), and that remains the only research-grounded reference point. The 'days on/off' or 'weeks on/off' cycle tables that circulate in research-peptide forums and vendor content are not derived from any trial of this blend, they reflect informal community convention, not evidence. We do not publish a schedule of our own, and nothing here is guidance for a person to follow.

Question 27

Where should I keep the vial before I reconstitute it?

Accepted Answer

In the fridge, from the day it arrives. This is the step people skip most often, because a sealed freeze-dried vial looks robust enough to leave in a drawer. The dry cake in these GHRH-family vials is thin and porous, and warmth combined with humidity makes it slump and densify. A collapsed cake then dissolves slowly or incompletely and can leave a haze or floating particles when you finally add water, even when the powder itself still assays perfectly. So put the vial in the fridge at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius on the day the parcel arrives, or in the freezer at -20 degrees if it will sit unused for more than a couple of weeks, and keep it dark either way. Let it come back to room temperature before you add water. Once reconstituted it stays in the fridge and never goes into the freezer, because freeze-thaw cycles are harder on a dissolved peptide than steady cold. The few days in transit at ambient temperature are expected and fine; it is the weeks afterwards that decide how well it dissolves.

Question 28

Does the bacteriostatic water I use actually matter?

Accepted Answer

More than most people expect, and the reason is the specification rather than the brand. Bacteriostatic water is permitted a wide window: the USP range is pH 4.5 to 7.0, so two bottles that both say 0.9% benzyl alcohol can sit at opposite ends of it. Most labels state the benzyl alcohol and nothing else, so you cannot tell where yours sits. That matters because a peptide is least soluble near its own isoelectric point, and a water that drifts to one edge of the range can push a sensitive peptide toward it, which shows up as haze or particles that no amount of swirling fixes. We know this first-hand: one of our own past water batches measured pH 3.8 on a meter, below the permitted floor, and it turned GLP-1 peptides milky regardless of technique. Our own bacteriostatic water now comes from a European manufacturer whose batches run pH 6.2 to 6.4, with the measured value for the specific batch stated on its certificate rather than just a pass mark. Whichever water you use, take a freshly opened vial, keep it at room temperature and out of the light, and do not reuse a bottle that has been open for months.

Question 29

Why can the CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin blend gel or turn cloudy during reconstitution, and how do I reconstitute it correctly?

Accepted Answer

The sensitivity of this blend comes almost entirely from the CJC-1295 part; Ipamorelin itself dissolves easily. CJC-1295 belongs to the GHRH analog family, for which formulation studies found aqueous solutions most stable in the mildly acidic pH 4 to 5 zone; close to neutral pH the risk of incomplete dissolution, cloudiness and gel rises sharply, and some batches react more sensitively than others. Our bacteriostatic water sits at pH 6.2 to 6.4 (the measured value of each batch is on its certificate), within specification but at the upper edge for this family, which makes this blend one of the most technique-sensitive products we carry. Use a generous volume of water, added slowly down the inside wall, swirl gently, never shake, and judge clarity only after 10 to 15 minutes of rest. If cloudiness or gel still appears, lower the pH by replacing part of the water with a dilute acetic-acid diluent such as our Acetic Acid Water. Correct technique and a suitable diluent are part of the reconstitution work that lies with the researcher; a vial is not defective simply because a high-concentration or high-pH mix turned cloudy.

Question 30

How do I reconstitute the CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin blend step by step with acetic-acid water?

Accepted Answer

Acid first, then top up, and a small acid start is usually enough; the CJC-1295 part drives the sensitivity, Ipamorelin itself is easy. Choose your end volume (2 ml or more per vial; more volume dissolves more easily). First run 0.1 to 0.2 ml of dilute acetic-acid water, for example our Acetic Acid Water, slowly down the inside wall and swirl gently until the powder has visibly dissolved, which can take a few minutes. Only then top up to the end volume with bacteriostatic water and swirl gently once more, never shake, and judge clarity after 10 to 15 minutes of rest. The finished mix typically sits around pH 5 to 5.5 as a rough guide, depending on your water, comfortably inside the window where the CJC-1295 part dissolves well (about pH 4 to 6.5). The reason for the order: the powder should dissolve in the most favorable, acidic environment. A gel that has already formed in near-neutral water can rarely be rescued with acid afterwards.

Question 31

Does unrefrigerated shipping affect the quality of this product?

Accepted Answer

No. This product ships as a lyophilized (freeze-dried) powder in a sealed vial. Freeze-drying removes the water that drives peptide degradation, so the dry powder remains stable at room temperature for extended periods, longer than any normal parcel transit. Ambient shipping is standard practice across the peptide industry, and a peer-reviewed study reported months of room-temperature stability for a lyophilized therapeutic peptide (teriparatide, PMID 26620825). For comparison, FDA labeling allows an Ozempic (semaglutide) pen, after first use, to be kept out of the fridge for 56 days at 15 to 30°C, and a Mounjaro (tirzepatide) pen for up to 21 days at up to 30°C, even though these are ready-mixed solutions rather than sealed dry powder. Store the sealed vial in the fridge or freezer for long-term storage, and always refrigerate after reconstitution.

Question 32

Can CJC-1295, Tesamorelin, or other GH-boosting peptides cause permanent facial or bone changes like acromegaly (the 'Joe Rogan look')?

Accepted Answer

The acromegaly literature describes a different exposure than anything a GH secretagogue study has produced. Clinical acromegaly is caused by years of pathological growth-hormone excess, almost always from a GH-secreting pituitary adenoma, typically diagnosed in patients aged 40 to 50 after long undiagnosed exposure (PMID 27812777, PMID 18578866). At diagnosis, acral enlargement is present in about 90 percent of patients and facial changes in about 65 percent (systematic review, PMID 37210433): frontal-bone thickening, sinus hypertrophy, mandibular overgrowth (PMID 35207363). Some skeletal changes persist even after the hormone excess is corrected (PMID 18578866). Against that: no clinical trial, case report or pharmacovigilance publication links CJC-1295 or tesamorelin to acromegaly-type bone or facial changes at studied doses and durations, and the FDA label of the approved tesamorelin product contains no acromegaly warning. The documented exposures are also far shorter: the longest published tesamorelin exposure is 52 weeks in the pooled phase 3 extension (n=806, PMID 20554713), with the pivotal 26-week trial reporting an 81 percent IGF-1 rise under medical monitoring (PMID 18057338), and one CJC-1295 DAC injection raised IGF-1 1.5 to 3-fold for 9 to 11 days (PMID 16352683). Two honest caveats: no study has followed GH-secretagogue exposure for the multi-year timeframe over which acromegaly develops, so absence of data is not a safety guarantee, and no dedicated human trial exists at all for the no-DAC CJC-1295 form sold as a research peptide. Also, an 'acromegaloid' appearance exists as its own clinical category without any GH excess (PMID 23533839), which is one reason celebrity-face arguments prove nothing in either direction.

Question 33

Does CJC-1295/Ipamorelin measurably raise IGF-1 in the published studies, by how much and for how long, and why can an individual IGF-1 reading barely move?

Accepted Answer

The only human fold-change data come from CJC-1295 WITH DAC, the long-acting form we do not sell: a single dose raised mean GH 2 to 10-fold for about 6 days and IGF-1 1.5 to 3-fold for 9 to 11 days (PMID 16352683). No dedicated human trial exists for the no-DAC form in this product, and Ipamorelin's single human trial measured post-surgical bowel recovery, never GH or IGF-1; its GH-release data are rat and swine pharmacology (PMID 9849822). So 'does the blend raise IGF-1 in humans, and by how much' has literally never been measured. Why an individual reading can still barely move even if the biology works: the trial reported only group means from a small study, and no study has characterized the spread of individual responses or whether baseline GH status predicts the response. On top of that, IGF-1 measurement itself is noisy between laboratories: the same serum samples measured in 5 labs varied with a mean coefficient of variation of about 26 percent (PMID 17323843); IGF-1 also declines steadily with age along a documented curve from a 15,014-subject reference study (PMID 24606072), so an age-typical value can read as 'low' against a young-adult range. A single IGF-1 draw is a weak instrument: as a screening test for GH deficiency it performed barely better than chance (AUC 0.517, PMID 34373538). One number, one lab, one time point cannot verify or falsify a research compound.

Question 34

What happens to GH/IGF-1 levels, strength, sleep, or muscle after stopping a CJC-1295/Ipamorelin cycle, and is there published data on anything reversing?

Accepted Answer

No controlled human study has followed anyone after stopping CJC-1295 (either form) or Ipamorelin, so the after-stopping question has no measured answer for GH, IGF-1, strength, muscle or sleep. The closest documented curve is from the DAC form we do not sell: after multiple doses, mean IGF-1 was still above baseline at 28 days, when the trial's observation window simply ended, so even that study never captured a full return to baseline (PMID 16352683). For the no-DAC form in this product there is no dedicated human pharmacokinetic study at all, and Ipamorelin's one human trial (post-surgical bowel recovery, IV dosing, PMID 25331030) measured no hormones. Equally important: no human trial of either compound, in any form, ever measured strength, lean mass or sleep as an outcome even DURING use, so 'do the gains reverse' presumes on-drug effects that were never quantified in the first place. The one adjacent literature that does exist, withdrawal studies of exogenous recombinant GH in diagnosed GH-deficient patients, describes a different molecule in a different population and does not transfer. What physiology does say: these peptides work by stimulating the body's own pulsatile GH release rather than replacing it, and no published data show suppression of the axis after stopping, but absence of data is the operative phrase, not evidence of a soft landing.

Question 35

Is facial flushing or a head-rush feeling right after a CJC-1295/Ipamorelin injection documented in the studies, how strong can it be, and does a weak flush mean a weak product?

Accepted Answer

Flushing is genuinely documented, but for a different molecule than most people assume: in the CJC-1295 WITH DAC trial, transient flushing and warmth shortly after injection were among the reported adverse events, and two subjects experienced transient dizziness and hypotension after their first injection, notably at the LOWEST dose in that study arm, both resolving without treatment (PMID 16352683, full text). Tachycardia or a pounding heart does not appear anywhere in that trial's reporting; the cardiovascular findings were hypotension-direction, not racing-heart-direction. For the related GHRH peptide sermorelin, published data describe transient facial warmth or flushing typically resolving within minutes (PMID 18031173). No trial has ever dosed the exact no-DAC CJC-1295/Ipamorelin combination in this product, and ipamorelin's one human trial reported only aggregate adverse-event rates with no flush breakdown (PMID 25331030), so blend-specific incidence and intensity numbers do not exist. The product-quality inference fails in both directions: no published source validates flush strength as an indicator of dose, purity or authenticity, and the trial data themselves show the response varies by person and dose without tracking potency. The verifiable quality signal remains the batch CoA. For completeness, the serious end of CJC-1295's clinical history is also on record: the DAC-form phase 2 programme was terminated after a participant death in 2006, with causality unconfirmed and the attending physician attributing it most likely to pre-existing coronary disease, as we document on the product page.

Question 36

Did any study test CJC-1295/Ipamorelin fasted versus fed, or morning versus before bed, and what does GH physiology say about glucose and GH release?

Accepted Answer

No published trial was identified testing fasted-versus-fed or time-of-day dosing for CJC-1295 (either form), ipamorelin, or the blend; the one human CJC-1295 study dosed the long-acting DAC form on fixed schedules (PMID 16352683), and ipamorelin's single human trial ran fixed post-surgical IV infusions with no meal or timing arms (PMID 25331030). The physiology behind the community's fasted-dosing rule is, however, genuinely documented, in related secretagogues: under a hyperglycemic clamp, the GH response to GHRH plus GHRP-6 dropped significantly compared with normal glucose (PMID 14693411), and a meal blunted hexarelin's GH response by about 40 percent while nearly abolishing the response to GHRH itself (PMID 10824712); the classic review literature lists glucose and free fatty acids among the established suppressors of stimulated GH release (PMID 9186261). Three limits keep this honest: all of that is GHRH/GHRP-class evidence, none of it was generated with the no-DAC CJC-1295 or ipamorelin molecules themselves; the clamp study was in type 2 diabetes patients with IV dosing, not healthy subcutaneous use; and no study was identified measuring whether the roughly 30-minute half-life of the no-DAC form we sell makes its response more or less sensitive to a recent meal. The bedtime logic rests on the documented fact that the largest natural GH pulse occurs in deep sleep, but as our existing FAQs note, no identified study has tested whether secretagogue timing around sleep changes any outcome. So: plausible physiology, borrowed from cousins, untested in these molecules.

Question 37

Why might CJC-1295/Ipamorelin disrupt sleep (waking at night) instead of the deep sleep people expect?

Accepted Answer

No measurement was identified: no controlled trial of either compound or the blend recording sleep continuity, wake-after-sleep-onset or any sleep-architecture endpoint, so both the deep-sleep promise and the 3-a.m.-wide-awake complaint rest on self-reports, which our FAQs document as genuinely running in both directions. What the adjacent physiology literature shows is more interesting than either camp assumes. The class mechanisms mostly point toward MORE deep sleep: GHRH itself enhanced slow-wave sleep in men (with an opposite, sleep-impairing pattern documented in women, PMID 17850984, one of the few sex-split findings in this field), and ghrelin, which stimulates the same receptor as ipamorelin, increased slow-wave sleep while reducing REM in human dosing studies (PMID 12388174, PMID 18329818). The route caveat cuts the other way: in mice, ghrelin delivered centrally promoted WAKEFULNESS while peripheral dosing did not change sleep (PMID 22815958), a reminder that receptor location decides the direction. Ipamorelin's celebrated selectivity (cortisol and ACTH responses not significantly different from GHRH stimulation) is swine pharmacology (PMID 9849822), never verified in humans, so a stress-axis explanation for bad nights can be neither invoked nor excluded. And our Mod GRF article documents an adjacent community pattern, transient nighttime flushing and warmth, that can itself wake people independent of any EEG effect. Net: the adjacent GHRH/ghrelin literature mostly points toward deeper sleep but tested none of these molecules, a documented sex difference and route dependence complicate it, individual divergence is unexplained, and no study of the fragmented-sleep phenomenon was identified for these compounds.

CJC-1295 (No-DAC)/Ipamorelin

What is CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin Mix

How it works

Often studied alongside

Documentation

Reconstitution tips

Storage and stability

Reviews

Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently bought together

CJC-1295 (No DAC)

IGF-1 LR3

Sermorelin

Ipamorelin

Bacteriostatic Water

Lab Measuring Syringe + Prep Wipes Set (1 mL 31G)

Graduated Measuring Syringe 1 mL 31G x 6 mm

Alcohol Prep Pads 30 x 65 mm

Peptide Storage Box (10 Compartments)

Peptide Vial Case 30 Slots