GH Peptide Stack

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    30

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    437700

    GH Peptide Stack

    So since CEM has a kick ass peptide sale going I decided to pull the trigger on my GH peptide stack. Ive been waiting and now I have one final ?. Im going to run GHHRP2 - thats a definite. Which is better to stack with it cjc1293 or sermorelin?
    Thanks Guys

  2. #2
    SFY BOARD REP
    ELITE MEMBER
    Paranoid Fitness's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Still on this side of the grass.
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,765

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    215495174


    Mod GRF 1-29 is what you need IMO.

    CJC 1293 is not mod GRF but many "research" companies will say it is.
    CEM is one of those companies. Their 1293 is indeed, Mod GRF, I've used it in my research in the past.

    No one makes CJC 1293, they're making Mod GRF 1-29 and mislabeling it as CJC 1293 because of forum postings years ago that mistakenly labelled 1293 as Mod GRF.
    They will also call it CJC 1295 no DAC when it is, in fact Mod GRF 1-29.

    Lots of good info here but I also suggest Dat's site.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    tl0311's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    NCA
    Posts
    748

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    99043759


    I'm running some imam with cjc. Fucking shit hurts. I'm ditching the cjc and I Pam once I run out in a few days and going to ghrp-2 at 750mgs ,Hypothetically. I don't see any big need for the cjc. 750 mg is more than. Enough to get you. Pumping that max 3 iu hgh a day
    I don't always punch babies, but when I do they had it coming

  4. #4
    Registered User
    tl0311's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    NCA
    Posts
    748

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    99043759


    I don't know if it's your first peptide go but holy shit some of these things hurt. My igf on the other hand. No pain at all
    I don't always punch babies, but when I do they had it coming

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Tyler114's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    102

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    294151

    Quote Originally Posted by tl0311 View Post
    I don't know if it's your first peptide go but holy shit some of these things hurt. My igf on the other hand. No pain at all
    hurt? O_o what are you talking about?

    I am running Mod GRF 1-29 with Ipam and Frag. No pain whatsoever.

  6. #6
    SFY BOARD REP
    ELITE MEMBER
    Paranoid Fitness's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Still on this side of the grass.
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,765

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    215495174


    Quote Originally Posted by tl0311 View Post
    I don't know if it's your first peptide go but holy shit some of these things hurt. My igf on the other hand. No pain at all
    Pain? Are injects IM or SubQ?

    Bac water or AA?

  7. #7
    Registered User
    tl0311's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    NCA
    Posts
    748

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    99043759


    really? ok well lets narrow this down to what the differences are. Are you doing it sub q? the bac water? I reconsituted 2mg of each with 4 ml bac water and it is extremely painful everytime. my igf-lr3 is gtg, though
    I don't always punch babies, but when I do they had it coming

  8. #8
    Registered User
    tl0311's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    NCA
    Posts
    748

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    99043759


    Im using a 31 gauge 5/16 slin pin. so sub q
    I don't always punch babies, but when I do they had it coming

  9. #9
    SFY BOARD REP
    ELITE MEMBER
    Paranoid Fitness's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Still on this side of the grass.
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,765

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    215495174


    Only asked because I haven't experienced pain with peptides subQ using bac water. I do let them warm to room temp prior to pinning.

    I have had some PIP with IM IGF on occasion.

  10. #10
    Moderator
    MODERATOR
    blergs.'s Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    E.U.
    Posts
    2,840

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Rep Points
    220627984


    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Fitness View Post
    Mod GRF 1-29 is what you need IMO.

    CJC 1293 is not mod GRF but many "research" companies will say it is.
    CEM is one of those companies. Their 1293 is indeed, Mod GRF, I've used it in my research in the past.

    No one makes CJC 1293, they're making Mod GRF 1-29 and mislabeling it as CJC 1293 because of forum postings years ago that mistakenly labelled 1293 as Mod GRF.
    They will also call it CJC 1295 no DAC when it is, in fact Mod GRF 1-29.

    Lots of good info here but I also suggest Dat's site.
    Actually CEM is honest and states CJC1293 and CJC1295, which they are.
    Sermorelin is a mod GRF which they also sell.. cjc1293 and cjc1295 both are with longer halflife, but cjc1293 is slightly shorter.
    I do agree many places call cjc1293 w/o dac when it should be just called Mod GRF or even Sermorelin...
    An AWESOME Place for HARD CORE REAL Bodybuilding Supplements:




    Save an additional 15% with code: blergs15

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Jimmyinkedup's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    US
    Posts
    830

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    52150449

    hurst? ive run several peptides inclusing 2 gh stack / cjc1293/ghrp6 and serm/ghrp2 - neither one hurt...at all.
    OP I recommend sermorelin and ghrp2. best gh bang fr your buck as far as pep combo go...








  12. #12
    Registered User
    tl0311's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    NCA
    Posts
    748

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    99043759


    Maybe a bad batch then. I'll try my ghrp-2 from a different company tonight
    I don't always punch babies, but when I do they had it coming

  13. #13
    SFY BOARD REP
    ELITE MEMBER
    Paranoid Fitness's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Still on this side of the grass.
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,765

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    215495174


    Quote Originally Posted by blergs. View Post
    Actually CEM is honest and states CJC1293 and CJC1295, which they are.
    Sermorelin is a mod GRF which they also sell.. cjc1293 and cjc1295 both are with longer halflife, but cjc1293 is slightly shorter.
    I do agree many places call cjc1293 w/o dac when it should be just called Mod GRF or even Sermorelin...
    I've no doubt that CEM is honest. What he/they/you don't understand is Mod GRF 1-29 and CJC 1293 ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

    That's all I was saying.
    I was not implying dishonesty.

    I am simply stating that CEM is selling Mod GRF 1-29 which is mislabeled as CJC 1293. They are not the same compound.
    This has been debated over and over in forum after forum when there really is nothing to debate.
    These peptide companies are selling Mod GRF 1-29 not CJC 1293.
    "CJC 1295 no DAC" or "without DAC" doesn't exist. It also is mislabeled Mod GRF 1-29. Any CJC is a DAC so if there is no DAC there is no CJC.
    These companies have the wrong names for the Mod GRF 1-29 product, that is all.
    If you are using CJC-1295 no DAC or CJC-1293 you are, in fact, using Mod GRF 1-29, in all likelihood.
    It is also likely these products have Mod GRF 1-29 printed somewhere on the label.

    Go over to Dat's site and read all about it.
    Or, better yet, I am cutting and pasting the article right here from Dat's site rather than re-hash what's already been written and discussed, copied and pasted and quoted all over the boards.

    Here you go, this is from Dat. All I did was copy and paste:

    Why don't you know what this means?

    You could start w/ the stickies in Dat's Primers section.

    As you progress in those primers you will find A Brief Summary of Dosing and Administration

    Therein you will find:

    GHRH

    Now Sermorelin, GHRH (1-44) and GRF(1-29) all are basically GHRH and have a short half-life in plasma because of quick cleavage between the 2nd & 3rd amino acid. This is no worry naturally because this hormone is secreted from the hypothalamus and travels a short distance to the underlying anterior pituitary and is not really subject to enzymatic cleavage. The release from the hypothalamus and binding to somatotrophs (pituitary cells) happens quickly.

    However when injected into the body it must circulate before finding its way to the pituitary and so within 3 minutes it is already being degraded.

    That is why GHRH in the above forms must be dosed high to get an effect.

    GHRH analogs

    All GHRH analogs swap Alanine at the 2nd position for D-Alanine which makes the peptide resistant to quick cleavage at that position. This means analogs will be more effective when injected at smaller dosing.

    The analog tetra or 4 substituted GRF(1-29) sometimes called CJC w/o the DAC or referred to by me as modified GRF(1-29) has other amino acid modifications. They are a glutamine (Gln or Q) at the 8-position, alanine (Ala or A) at the 15-position, and a leucine (Leu or L) at the 27-position.

    The alanine at the 8th position enhances bioavailability but the other two amino substitutions are made to enhance the manufacturing process (i.e. create manufacturing stability).

    For use in vivo, in humans, the GHRH analog known as CJC w/o the DAC or tetra (4) substituted GRF(1-29) or modified GRF(1-29) is a very effective peptide with a half-life probably 30+ minutes.

    That is long enough to be completely effective.

    The saturation dose is also defined as 100mcg.

    With specific regard to the term "CJC-1293" a quick search here would have found a thread started by fm2002 called: (CJC-1293 AKA GRF (1-29) ) What exactly is this ?

    There is good discussion therein including Bob's initial reply. You could also read my reply posted at the #21 position reproduced below for a fuller explanation:
    Basically anytime you take a peptide and swap out an amino acid for another you look at it to see if it still binds to its receptor or acts the way the original compound will act. If not then your change was worthless.

    But if you swap out an amino acid and you get the same effects as the original compound it becomes what is known as an analog.

    All of these things are simply analogs of GHRH (Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone). Thats it.

    Well before those few CJC-1295 studies analogs were created. 15 amino acids were lopped off because they had no value for GH release. That left 29 amino acids and they called that Growth hormone Releasing Factor (1-29) or GRF(1-29). Thats all GRF(1-29) is... it is the native hormone GHRH (with the inactive tail removed). The prescription drug for GRF(1-29) is sold under the name Sermorelin.

    But native GHRH is released from the brain and barely travels any distance to the pituitary so it isn't subject to degradation from plasma enzymes. GHRH works in our body and in pigs and rats and chickens.

    But if you want to inject it, it has to travel in the blood stream where it is subject to degradation. So if you inject GRF(1-29) or GHRH into a body it will degrade withing a few minutes. Sure some will bind in the pituitary but most will not. So what they did was determine EXACTLY what was happening. Cleavage was occurring at the 2nd position so one analog that was created swapped Arginine for the D form of Arginine (D-Arg) at that position. Thats it.

    Now that analog in rats I believe lasted 30 minutes but in humans still less then 10 minutes.

    Along the way many people made many different analogs. You can swap amino acids like we just discussed or you can add side chains. The side chains will protect the vulnerable amino acid. It acts as a stiff arm. Of course adding side chains could mean the peptide no longer works so it has to be tested to see it it will still bind to its receptor (or if it is a receptor-less peptide if it still behaves as the original).

    Pegylation is often used to create a longer lasting analog. Often though when you create an analog w/ side chains or Pegylation you give the peptide longer life but reduce its binding affinity (attraction) for its receptor. The analog IGF-1 LR3 has a longer life then IGF-1 (provided it isn't bound to a binding protein for survival) but it has a weaker affinity for the IGF-1 receptor. The same thing for the DES form of IGF-1.

    Amino acid swaps to create analogs are done to strengthen the peptide but also to make the synthesis process easier.

    When the CJC-1295 study was done they needed comparisons for the structure they really wanted to test. What they really wanted to do was take their invention called a Drug Affinity Complex, DAC for short and attach it to all sorts of things. SO Conjuchem the makers patented it.

    DAC is like velcro. It clings to albumin. Albumin exists in plasma. In fact GH when it binds to a receptor does many things besides initiate IGF-1 transcription. It also initiates transcription of albumin. That is how albumin can be made. But that is an aside.. back to the main point. Albumin has a long life and so if you can get something to cling to it for protection then maybe you can get that something to have a long life as well.

    Albumin has a long life in rats and rabbits...maybe as long as 30 days [I forget?]. In humans it is a lot less... 10 days? [I'm sorry I forget exactly]. The point is when you look at the animal study for CJC-1295 you can not rely on the numbers because of the difference in albumin life.

    Conjuchem wanted to use the DAC they invented on several peptides to create long-lasting analogs. GHRH was not something they cared much about. Insulin and a few others are where the money's at... diabetes is big money.

    But they attached the DAC to GRF(1-29) and studied it. They needed to add a Lysine amino acid between GRF(1-29) and the DAC as sticky glue. This is the trickiest part to synthesize because most attempts will not take and the yield is low.

    So in that human study they needed comparisons. So they attached the DAC to 3 analogs.

    The first was simply sticking it onto GRF(1-29) w/ Lysine glue. This they called CJC-1288. The reason they did not call it GRF(1-29) is because they added the Lysine and their patented DAC.

    That is precisely why the term CJC was used. Predictably CJC-1288 degraded rather quickly because it had no amino acid swaps to make it stronger. So within minutes there was cleavage at the 2nd position. GRF(1-29) has little to no bioactivity when that occurs.

    They then made the swap I have been talking about. They swapped Arginine at the 2nd position for a more resistant D-Arginine. No other swaps were made. They then used the Lysine sticky and attached the DAC.

    The Lysine/ DAC seems to confer a little more protection from degradation via stiff arm.

    This peptide was named CJC-1293. Note that it is the same peptide discussed above where there is just the one swap. The half-life of that peptide is still below 10 minutes. Adding the DAC made CJC-1293 have a longer half-life.

    But if you you remove the DAC or call if CJC-1293 (w/o the DAC) you know what you end up with? You end up with That old analog of GRF(1-29) with Arg swapped for the D form at the 2nd position. It is barely better then GRF(1-29). In fact I was being a bit kind to it by saying less then 10 minutes. The half-life is around 5 minutes.

    Then in that same study they took GRF(1-29) and made 4 amino acid substitutions. The one at the 2nd position as just described and 3 more. This made the GRF structure more viable and to that they attached the Lysine glue and the DAC.

    This they called CJC-1295.

    You know what you get when you take off that Lysine/DAC? You get GRF(1-29) w/ 4 amino acid swaps. This is called tetra-substitued in that study. The term tetra is Greek for four. So it could be called 4-sub. Bob liked the term tetra-sub. But just to fuck with him I decided to call it modified. Seriously I don't know why I labeled it that exactly. That has a half-life of a bit more then 30 minutes.

    Now adding the DAC gives Modified GRF(1-29) and also the analog w/ just the 2nd amino acid a longer half life. The DAC on Modified GRF(1-29) gives it a half-life of half a week. But having a GHRH always around means the GHRH-receptors just leak GH all the time. That is what I mean by GH bleed.

    There is some good speculation that CJC-1295 could cause pituitary problems because of the chronic bleed. I looked at this pretty hard and even wrote something on it. I have the opinion that lower doses will not present such a problem but the higher doses used in the study make me back off my opinion. I advised taking a break if you did run genuine CJC-1295 at those study doses. I believe in the well respected JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) concern was expressed over CJC-1295 as an open ended question.

    So how and why does it come to pass that a retailer labels GRF(1-29) w/ one amino swap and a piss poor half-life as CJC-1293...then goes on and states that THAT is the technical term for something with 4 amino acid swaps? I shouldn't tell on myself. Well you know how I am prone to go off on a tangent sometimes? Well once on "the private board with no name" I whipped off such a post and made the statement that CJC-1293 was Modified GRF(1-29). It sat there for maybe a month and when I revisited it I had to laugh at my mistake and of course I deleted it (so noone would know Dat can make a mistake).

    SO I am not saying that a retailer just took from me and then pretends such a thing springs from his own genius. It is entirely possible that I am not the only idiot. But seriously what are the odds... right?

    Bottom line though is if you have CJC-1293 w/o the DAC you have a peptide inferior to modified GRF(1-29). But who really knows what you have? Stenlabs use to sell Gaba/Gabob as MGF.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    tl0311's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    NCA
    Posts
    748

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    99043759


    come to think of it, stomach was red and sore the day after inj, at inj. sight
    I don't always punch babies, but when I do they had it coming

  15. #15
    Moderator
    MODERATOR
    blergs.'s Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    E.U.
    Posts
    2,840

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Rep Points
    220627984


    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Fitness View Post
    I've no doubt that CEM is honest. What he/they/you don't understand is Mod GRF 1-29 and CJC 1293 ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
    I know they are not the same thing.. so do they I am sure.
    that is why I said CJC1293 and cjc 1295 are almost exactly the same, cjc a bit quicker, but still slow like cjc1295, they BOTH have dac... there is a real cjc1293.. but not the w/o dac BS one.

    I agree with you on them not being the same AND many places simple calling mod GRF 1-29 : cjc1293 w/o dac, which is inaccurate. I am just saying you picked a bad example I guess.
    Unless I am missing something.
    An AWESOME Place for HARD CORE REAL Bodybuilding Supplements:




    Save an additional 15% with code: blergs15

Similar Threads

  1. Peptide stack question cjc, ghrp or Sermorelin?
    By CrazyTod in forum Research Chemicals
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-29-2013, 04:10 PM
  2. Best Precontest Peptide Stack
    By BlueJayMuscle in forum Research Chemicals
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-29-2013, 02:26 AM
  3. What peptide to stack with HGH
    By Pahlevan in forum Research Chemicals
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-14-2013, 05:47 PM
  4. prohomones and peptide stack.
    By Irishcop in forum Supplements
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2012, 10:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright© 2001-2017 IronMag® Bodybuilding Forums