Tesamorelin — when does it make sense over CJC/Ipa combo
15 posts
Tesamorelin has a clinical track record (HIV-associated lipodystrophy), hits GHRH receptor, causes real GH pulse. Vs CJC no-DAC + Ipa stack, where does it sit in a modern protocol?
6 Replies
94 posts
Tesa shines for visceral fat reduction specifically. CJC/Ipa is more general GH support. Different tools. If VAT is your target (middle-aged recomp), tesa earns a spot.
- 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
Tesa is basically GHRH 1-44 (full length). Longer action than no-DAC, less potent than DAC. Middle-ground. Pairs well with a GHRP for synergy.
- 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
71 posts
The HIV lipodystrophy trials are the only phase 3 data in class. VAT reduction was real (~18% over 6mo). That's the data that justifies tesa over analogs in certain populations.
71 posts
Cost is the argument against tesa for most — it's 3-5x more expensive than no-DAC. Unless VAT is the goal, no-DAC + Ipa wins on cost.
- BPC-157 · 500 mcg · 2x/day · sub-Q
- GHK-Cu · 2 mg · nightly topical · topical
45 posts
For anyone considering tesa — DEXA with VAT measurement at baseline and 6mo is the right way to confirm the expected effect. Otherwise you're paying for a general GH axis tool.
39 posts
Tesa at 2mg daily is the HIV trial dose. 1mg daily is a reasonable recomp starting point with lower sides. Titration applies here too.