CJC-1295 DAC vs no-DAC — I think DAC is overrated for most users
73 posts
Sustained release vs pulsatile is the classic debate. CJC-DAC sits at pharma levels for days; no-DAC is cleared in ~30 min. The theory: DAC raises baseline, no-DAC preserves pulse physiology.
In practice:
- DAC users report elevated IGF-1 through the cycle BUT report more water retention, less dream-heavy sleep, more CTS-like symptoms over weeks.
- No-DAC users report cleaner sleep quality, less systemic side effects, IGF-1 rises less but still rises, pulses are preserved.
DAC's pitch was always 'one pin a week, set it and forget it.' In practice people add Ipa on top to restore pulse, at which point the convenience argument is gone — you're still pinning daily for the Ipa.
My take: no-DAC is the default. DAC is a legacy choice for people who are doing GHRH-only (no GHRP stacking) and want simplicity. Fight me.
- BPC-157 · 500 mcg · 2x/day · sub-Q
- GHK-Cu · 2 mg · nightly topical · topical
11 Replies
212 posts
DAC has a specific use case: older users with very blunted pulse amplitude where a sustained baseline provides more value than a preserved pulse. For 40+ with low baseline GH/IGF, DAC isn't crazy. For 30yo peak-pulse guys, 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
Fully agree. CJC-DAC is a convenience story that becomes a cost story once you realize you're pinning Ipa daily anyway. No-DAC with daily Ipa gives you cleaner pulse pharmacology and comparable IGF-1.
- 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
43 posts
CTS-like symptoms are a near-universal report on DAC past week 3. Water retention, paresthesias, morning stiffness. Much rarer on no-DAC. Probably the biggest tolerability gap between the two.
29 posts
DAC at lower doses (1mg weekly instead of 2mg) is a different animal. Fewer sides, more modest IGF bump. Rarely discussed.
45 posts
DAC's continuous stimulation is physiologically distinct from endogenous pulsatile GHRH. There's a case that sustained baseline drives more receptor desensitization long-term. No hard data on this in humans but mechanism is plausible.
117 posts
The pulsatile vs sustained argument often gets over-theorized. In practice the delta in IGF-1 between the two strategies at reasonable doses is modest, and the biggest determinant of outcome is adherence and total dose, not pulse shape.
50 posts
I ran DAC for 2 cycles and switched to no-DAC for the last 3. Cleaner sleep, less puffy, same recovery. Don't plan to go back. n=1.
73 posts
Good thread. Net summary: no-DAC is the modern default, DAC is a niche tool for low-baseline older users or GHRH-only protocols. Don't stack DAC+Ipa unless you're after the IGF edge and accepting the sides.
- BPC-157 · 500 mcg · 2x/day · sub-Q
- GHK-Cu · 2 mg · nightly topical · topical
28 posts
This thread just saved me money. I was about to buy DAC because the marketing said 'once weekly.' Ordering no-DAC instead.
16 posts
Yeah this tracks with what I've seen. Ran DAC for like 4 weeks and the water retention was legit annoying, woke up puffy every morning. Switched to no-DAC and pinned daily instead, sleep actually came back, stayed leaner. The convenience story of DAC is total bs if you end up needing to run something else to feel normal again anyway.