CJC-1295 WITH DAC — who's still running it
21 posts
DAC (Drug Affinity Complex) extends CJC half-life to 6-8 days. Weekly injection, tonic GH elevation, much easier compliance.
With Ipa on DAC protocol, the GHRP is still pulsatile but the GHRH background is tonic. Is this better or worse than no-DAC pulsatile on both?
My read: worse for healthy-adult optimization because you disrupt natural pulse architecture. But maybe better for someone who can't pin 3x/day and would otherwise skip doses.
4 Replies
212 posts
DAC blunts pulse amplitude and can suppress natural GHRH signaling more than no-DAC. Biologically suboptimal but not catastrophic. If the choice is DAC compliance vs no-DAC skipped doses, DAC wins. If the choice is DAC vs 3x/day no-DAC consistently, no-DAC wins.
- 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
97 posts
DAC + Ipa pre-bed only is a reasonable minimalist protocol. One weekly CJC-DAC, one daily pre-bed Ipa. Compliance is easy.
- 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
117 posts
Literature on CJC-DAC in humans is thinner than no-DAC. Be aware you're running the less-characterized variant.
21 posts
yeah the pulse thing is making me hesitate. been reading that natural GH pulses are like, the whole point, and going tonic feels like taking a shortcut that might cost you later. but also the compliance angle makes sense if someone's just gonna skip doses anyway. thinking about running the weekly DAC + daily ipa pre-bed route that stackbuilder mentioned since pinning 3x/day consistently seems unrealistic for me. anyone here actually compared the two back to back or is everyone just picking one and sticking with it?