Pulse vs continuous — why does anyone run continuous on short-half-life peptides
46 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?
4 Replies
41 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.
94 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
46 posts
So: BPC continuous fine, GHRP pulse default, adherence is the tiebreaker. Got it.
205 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