Tesamorelin — when does it make sense over CJC/Ipa combo
16 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?
7 Replies
97 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
212 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.
73 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
47 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.
45 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.
12 posts
Tesa makes sense if you're actually trying to torch VAT and have the cash, otherwise you're just overpaying for a slower onset GHRH. No-DAC + Ipa is the budget play and honestly works just as well for recomp if you're dialing in your protocol right. The clinical data on VAT reduction is legit but that's a specific goal, not a general "I wanna be jacked" goal. Save the tesa money for better food and training.