Mod-GRF 1-29 vs CJC-1295 no-DAC — is there a functional difference
28 posts
They're effectively the same molecule (GRF 1-29). Vendors label differently. Is there any real pharmacological delta or is it purely marketing?
5 Replies
97 posts
Same molecule. Marketing labels. Dose the same, expect the same.
- 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
Technically 'CJC-1295 no-DAC' and 'mod-GRF 1-29' refer to the same tetrasubstituted GHRH 1-29 analog. Interchangeable in practice.
- 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
73 posts
'Mod-GRF 1-29' is more chemically descriptive, 'CJC-1295 no-DAC' is the original developer's naming. Both refer to the tetrasubstituted GHRH(1-29) with the same 4 amino acid modifications for stability.
- BPC-157 · 500 mcg · 2x/day · sub-Q
- GHK-Cu · 2 mg · nightly topical · topical
8 posts
Yeah they're the same peptide, same amino acid sequence, same modifications. The naming thing is just legacy branding from when CJC Pharma originally developed it vs how the research community started calling it. Run them side by side at the same dose and you're not gonna see a difference in your IGF-1 levels, which is what actually matters. Way more variation between batches from different sources than between these two labels honestly.