N-Acetyl Selank vs regular Selank — is the acetylation worth it?
34 posts
N-Acetyl Selank gets marketed as longer half-life / more stable in solution. I can believe the second part (acetyl capping does protect the N-terminus from aminopeptidases). What I can't tell is whether the subjective effect is meaningfully different, or if it's just slightly more durable in the bottle.
Anyone run both back-to-back on the same reconstitution batch?
6 Replies
23 posts
Ran regular Selank for 3 months, then N-Acetyl for 3 months, same supplier, same reconstitution method. Subjectively indistinguishable at 600 mcg. The N-acetyl vial did hold its potency longer in the fridge — I could go ~5 weeks without feeling a drop, vs ~3 weeks for regular.
94 posts
If you reconstitute small batches and use them fast, the acetyl version isn't buying you much. If you mix a 5mg vial and sip it over 6 weeks, it might.
- 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
205 posts
The acetyl vs non-acetyl discourse in this space is 85% vendor marketing and 15% actual pharmacology. Run the one you can source reliably and stop optimizing at the third decimal.
- 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
18 posts
In theory N-acetyl should also cross membranes slightly better. In practice with intranasal delivery you're already bypassing most of the GI/first-pass concerns so the benefit shrinks.
115 posts
The half-life extension from N-acetylation is real in vitro. The magnitude in vivo for a peptide this short is not well characterized. Worth knowing, not worth paying a premium for.
17 posts