GHRP-2 vs GHRP-6 — and when appetite stimulation is a feature
71 posts
GHRP-6 is infamous for ravenous hunger. GHRP-2 has some appetite effect but way less. Both are older GHRP compounds that have been partially displaced by Ipa and Hexarelin.
Where GHRP-6 actually wins: underweight populations or people trying to bulk who can't eat enough. The hunger isn't a side effect, it's the point. Lean gainers who get full at 2800 kcal will find GHRP-6 turns them into 4000 kcal eaters effortlessly.
GHRP-2 is a middle ground — decent pulse, mild appetite bump, slightly more prolactin than Ipa.
When does this matter in 2026? Almost never because Ipa is better for most people. But if you're a skinny lifter trying to reach caloric targets, GHRP-6 has a role Ipa literally can't fill.
- BPC-157 · 500 mcg · 2x/day · sub-Q
- GHK-Cu · 2 mg · nightly topical · topical
5 Replies
31 posts
GHRP-6 for the underweight lifter is underrated. I had a client (natural, lifelong skinny) go from 147 to 162 in 14 weeks on GHRP-6 100 mcg 3x daily because he finally could eat enough. Ipa wouldn't have done that.
205 posts
Correct take. GHRP-6 is niche, not obsolete. The feature is appetite. If that's what you need, use it. If not, Ipa is better.
- CJC-1295 no DAC · 100 mcg · pre-bed · sub-Q
- Ipamorelin · 200 mcg · pre-bed · sub-Q
- BPC-157 · 500 mcg · 2x/day · sub-Q
94 posts
GHRP-2's prolactin bump is smaller than hex but bigger than Ipa. For comparable GH pulse it's still worse than Ipa in 2026 in almost every scenario.
- CJC-1295 no DAC · 100 mcg · pre-bed · sub-Q
- Ipamorelin · 200 mcg · pre-bed · sub-Q
- BPC-157 · 250 mcg · 2x/day · sub-Q
16 posts
Cost consideration — GHRP-2 and GHRP-6 are cheaper than Ipa still. For someone budget-constrained, GHRP-2 at moderate dose is a reasonable entry point.
20 posts
I've been on GHRP-6 + CJC no-DAC for bulk. Appetite is the whole game at 45. This is working where Ipa didn't.