Pulse vs continuous — why does anyone run continuous on short-half-life peptides
50 posts
Most short-half-life peptides have a pulse-based logic baked in (GHRPs, BPC for local effect). Yet people run them continuously 7 days/week. Is there a reason continuous ever beats pulsed (5/2 or 4/3) outside of adherence?
5 Replies
43 posts
For GHRPs specifically, continuous is leaving value on the table past week 4. No biological reason to run 7/7 unless you haven't read about desensitization.
97 posts
Continuous BPC makes sense when the goal is systemic anti-inflammatory baseline rather than acute healing. For GHRPs, pulse wins basically always. Adherence is real though.
- 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
50 posts
So: BPC continuous fine, GHRP pulse default, adherence is the tiebreaker. Got it.
212 posts
One more angle — continuous dosing is easier to remember and harder to screw up. For people who struggle with compliance on complex schedules, continuous wins even when pulsed is theoretically better.
- 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
28 posts
pulsing GHRPs is objectively better on paper but like 90% of people cant stick to it past month 2. continuous is boring but it actually gets run. ive seen way more progress from guys who just pinned every day and actually did it for 12 weeks than guys who had the "perfect" protocol written out and quit after 3.