CJC-1295 DAC vs no-DAC — I think DAC is overrated for most users
71 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
10 Replies
205 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
94 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
41 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.
25 posts
DAC at lower doses (1mg weekly instead of 2mg) is a different animal. Fewer sides, more modest IGF bump. Rarely discussed.
39 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.
115 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.
46 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.
71 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
25 posts
This thread just saved me money. I was about to buy DAC because the marketing said 'once weekly.' Ordering no-DAC instead.