Mod-GRF 1-29 vs CJC-1295 no-DAC — is there a functional difference
N
Joined 2026
25 posts
25 posts
new2peptidesMember
3/19/2026 · 1484 views
They're effectively the same molecule (GRF 1-29). Vendors label differently. Is there any real pharmacological delta or is it purely marketing?
4 Replies
S
Joined 2025
94 posts
94 posts
stackbuilderRegular
3/19/2026
Same molecule. Marketing labels. Dose the same, expect the same.
└Growth + recovery
- 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
H
Joined 2025
205 posts
205 posts
hexaclinic✦ Contributor
29d ago
Technically 'CJC-1295 no-DAC' and 'mod-GRF 1-29' refer to the same tetrasubstituted GHRH 1-29 analog. Interchangeable in practice.
└Q2 stack
- 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
N
Joined 2026
25 posts
25 posts
P
Joined 2025
71 posts
71 posts
protocolpilotRegular
27d ago
'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.
└Healing + skin
- BPC-157 · 500 mcg · 2x/day · sub-Q
- GHK-Cu · 2 mg · nightly topical · topical
Sign in to reply.