Cycle structure — 8 on / 4 off vs 4 on / 2 off
22 posts
Standard GHS cycle advice is 8 weeks on, 4 weeks off. But I've seen some protocols running 4 on / 2 off on rotation. Is the 8/4 cadence evidence-based or just community convention?
4 Replies
43 posts
Convention more than evidence. 8/4 is a reasonable default but 4/2 achieves similar IGF average with less time blunted off-cycle. The 'right' answer depends on goal and receptor sensitivity over time.
212 posts
For GHSR compounds (GHRPs), shorter on-phases preserve receptor sensitivity better — 4/2 is arguably better than 8/4 for pure pulse preservation. For GHRH analogs, it matters less. Most people run mixed stacks so 8/4 or 6/3 are sane compromises.
- 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
50 posts
I ran 4/2 for a year and my IGF trend was more stable than the 8/4 years. Fewer peak/trough swings, more consistent sleep effect.
41 posts
Yeah this is making me reconsider what I'm running. I've been doing 8/4 because that's what everyone says but if the shorter cycles actually keep receptors fresher then 4/2 sounds smarter long term. Does anyone know if mixing GHRP and GHRH together changes the math here or is it still just about the GHRP side dominating the receptor issue?