Epithalon — alternate protocols (daily low dose vs classical 10/80)
36 posts
Some people run 2-5 mg daily for 30 days instead of 10 mg for 10 days. Pharmacokinetically they're very different — daily low dose is a sustained exposure, 10/80 is a pulsatile course.
Khavinson's original was pulsatile. But his rationale (short, telomerase-activating bursts) is mechanism theory. In practice, has anyone compared? And is there an argument for daily low dose that isn't just 'I couldn't be bothered to cycle'?
7 Replies
32 posts
Ran 5mg/day for 30 days, then switched to 10/80 for three cycles. The sleep improvement during the 10-day window is subjectively sharper than daily dosing ever produced. If the effect is bioregulatory (pulsatile signaling), daily dosing might actively blunt it.
31 posts
Daily low dose has an ergonomic appeal but I can't find a mechanism argument that isn't basically 'more is more.' That's not how pineal peptides are supposed to work.
115 posts
There's no head-to-head human data comparing the two dosing schedules. Vendors and influencers decided daily low dose was fine because it sells more product. Stick with the original protocol until something better emerges.
22 posts
Ran 2.5mg/day for 90 days, no cycling. Felt nothing, labs didn't move. Switched to 10/80 and the sleep effect showed up in cycle 1. Anecdotal, but it matches the pulsatile-is-what-works framing.
36 posts
Thanks all — this is basically the thread I wanted to see. Sticking with 10/80.
26 posts
Agreed on pulsatile. The only reason to run daily low dose IMO is if you've already done 3-4 classical cycles and want to try something different to see if anything new emerges. Not as a replacement.