Anyone use CJC-DAC alongside CJC non-DAC?

[Landmonster]

This GW15 guy is a troll.

Guys, the point of this thread is not to debate whether or not CJC-DAC or CJC-nonDAC is effective. I think we all know that both of them are effective in their own right, when combined with a GHRP. Lab testing and anecdotal evidence suggests that both CJC peptides have some positive effects....


THE QUESTION IS....

Should we use CJC-DAC along with CJC-nonDAC in the same week?

My hypothesis is that CJC-DAC might add some benefit, since CJC-nonDAC is not keeping growth hormone elevated at all hours. This is especially true in people who can only inject nonDAC 2 or 3 times a day, due to life or work schedules.

What about a schedule like this?
2mg CJC-DAC once per week.
100mcg CJC-nonDAC + 100mcg GHRP-2, twice a day


Would this be useful?

 

[GW15]

This GW15 guy is a troll.

What???
You are just a stupid beefcake!
I gave you the info that was missed by everybody in the bb-world... and what I see now? You even can not pay attention to that!
You have not enough intelligence to look at the graph and compare it with your famous "lab results".:banghead:
You can't understand what the "bioavailability" is.
All you can do is just speak like a robot - "CJC+GHRP, synergy, lab results, 12.8 ng/ml is cool!"
And now you offer to inject "no DAC" (100 mcg HA-HA-HA!!!) together with DAC? What for?
If you want - do it! And then compare the lab results - you will see that your non-DAC gives you NOTHING!

 

[GW15]

We have a saying
"Do not cast pearls in front of swine"
Maybe, it is very good in this case...

 

[DrNat]

Man, are you deaf or a blind? I gave you the DAT'S GRAPH! It is GH-results after less than 100 GHRP + 100 GHRH

Now you are telling me again the bullshit about "normal GH" and "4 hours pulse"!

You got 12.8 and the graph show about 100 ng/ml! Nothing to say? So go to read the sience studies!

Who do you think you are talking to like that?

Am I deaf... so i need to hear to read do I You're the one who skips over all the questions i bring up. Let me dumb it down for you.

1. That graph is for IV not SubQ, you cannot compare those results and Alphas. They are two completely different delivery methods and it is not scientific to compare IV with SubQ.
2. It does not specify which GHRP was used, it is also unscientific to compare the weakest GHRP (Ipam) with a stronger GHRP like GHRP-2
3. Your whole point was GHRH was useless, in any application. This graph shows it elevates GH FAR beyond placebo (baseline).
4. The graph also shows it's synergistic effect when combined with GHRP
5. That synergistic effect is more than taking each alone singly

You ignore the baseline range for what we NATURALLY produce and that is 0.01-1.00 ng/mL. Look at the size of range, we are getting much larger pulses above that.

You still havnt said what would be better than peptides....

 

[GW15]

1. That graph is for IV not SubQ, you cannot compare those results and Alphas. They are two completely different delivery methods and it is not scientific to compare IV with SubQ.

Man! You on the right way! That's what I was talking about!
I said that ModGRF s.c. (you call it SubQ) or i.m. is very uneffective!
The only effective way is i.v! It gives about 10-15 ng/ml for 100 mcg.
But s.c. or i.m. gives about nothing! That was a big mistake of Dat - he forget that all the studies he use is i.v!
GHRP is much more effective via s.c. or i.m. - about 60-80% compared to i.v.

(On that ghaph it is GHRP-2 (I know the i.v. results for that), besides Ipamorelin was not created on the day of that study)

So, when you inject ModGRF + GHRP - only GHRP is works, because most of ModGRF degrade at the injection site.

And then more... Alpha's 12.8 ng/ml is a very bad result!
60-80% * 250 mcg GHRP-2 = 150-200 mcg (i.v.) Besides, he add 500 mcg of ModGRF!
Have you ever seen results like 50 ng/ml? I've seen... that is more consistent with the theoretical.
But 12.8 is absolutely bad!

 

[DrNat]

Man! You on the right way! That's what I was talking about!
I said that ModGRF s.c. (you call it SubQ) or i.m. is very uneffective!
The only effective way is i.v! It gives about 10-15 ng/ml for 100 mcg.
But s.c. or i.m. gives about nothing! That was a big mistake of Dat - he forget that all the studies he use is i.v!
GHRP is much more effective via s.c. or i.m. - about 60-80% compared to i.v.

(On that ghaph it is GHRP-2 (I know the i.v. results for that), besides Ipamorelin was not created on the day of that study)

So, when you inject ModGRF + GHRP - only GHRP is works, because most of ModGRF degrade at the injection site.

And then more... Alpha's 12.8 ng/ml is a very bad result!
60-80% * 250 mcg GHRP-2 = 150-200 mcg (i.v.) Besides, he add 500 mcg of ModGRF!
Have you ever seen results like 50 ng/ml? I've seen... that is more consistent with the theoretical.
But 12.8 is absolutely bad!

1. I agree IV is much better than SubQ, of course... This does not mean GHRH is useless, maybe the SubQ is not the best delivery method but if using IV provides such a massive result then it is not useless. People may choose to do IV or SubQ.
2. Alpha used 100mcg of ModGRf not 500mcg
http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/1361577-post194.html
3. 12.8 is not a bad result for SubQ when you consider the normal GH surge may be 0.01, how can you not understand that?
4. Show me what else SubQ will give these results?

Either way i'd take a SubQ GH of 12.8 anyday over having to IV myself all the time !!!!

 

[GW15]

1. I agree IV is much better than SubQ, of course... This does not mean GHRH is useless, maybe the SubQ is not the best delivery method but if using IV provides such a massive result then it is not useless. People may choose to do IV or SubQ.
2. Alpha used 100mcg of ModGRf not 500mcg
http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/1361577-post194.html
3. 12.8 is not a bad result for SubQ when you consider the normal GH surge may be 0.01, how can you not understand that?
4. Show me what else SubQ will give these results?

Either way i'd take a SubQ GH of 12.8 anyday over having to IV myself all the time !!!!

I was looking to the first post http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/peptides-growth-factors/89886-exciting-grf1-29-ghrp-2-serum-gh-test.html#post1342943 he use 500+250 mcg

s.c. for ModGRF is only about 5-10% effective compared to i.v.
(for Egrifta - it is documented as 4%!)

OK, if you want to see some good results, here they are:
look to 38.4 ng/ml
**broken link removed**

look to 48.50 ng/ml
**broken link removed**

 

[DrNat]

I was looking to the first post http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/peptides-growth-factors/89886-exciting-grf1-29-ghrp-2-serum-gh-test.html#post1342943 he use 500+250 mcg

s.c. for ModGRF is only about 5-10% effective compared to i.v.
(for Egrifta - it is documented as 4%!)

OK, if you want to see some good results, here they are:
look to 38.4 ng/ml
**broken link removed**

look to 48.50 ng/ml
**broken link removed**

So what cjc-1295 did they use in the 38.4 result, DAC or ModGRF?
And same with the 48.5, what did they use?
Was it SubQ or IV?

You are comparing two or three different combinations, and subjects here.. Either way they are all good results. I dont see you issue?

 

[GW15]

So what cjc-1295 did they use in the 38.4 result, DAC or ModGRF?
And same with the 48.5, what did they use?
Was it SubQ or IV?

You are comparing two or three different combinations, and subjects here.. Either way they are all good results. I dont see you issue?

For 38.4 - CJC-1295 is non-DAC!
For 48.5 I don't remember... It was something like 200-250 mcg GHRP-2 + xxx CJC
Sure, it was s.c injection! It was tested by a bb just like you!

The issue is that in these combos results are much-much bigger than Alpha's!
And these results are very common! They are not something that happens ones in a year
The second issue is low bioavailability of CJC non-DAC...

 

[DrNat]

For 38.4 - CJC-1295 is non-DAC!
For 48.5 I don't remember... It was something like 200-250 mcg GHRP-2 + xxx CJC
Sure, it was s.c injection! It was tested by a bb just like you!

The issue is that in these combos results are much-much bigger than Alpha's!
And these results are very common! They are not something that happens ones in a year
The second issue is low bioavailability of CJC non-DAC...

Then how are you not impressed by ModGRF? Even subQ giving results like that. What else can do that?

Just because Alpha's test subject only had a result of 19.5 doesnt mean anything. It was only one result, he may be on the lower end of the deviation, you two results may be the upper, who knows, there are not enough test subjects using the same dose, supplier to find out.. I think this discussion is done.

For the original Question i do not believe it is worth doing ModGRF and DAC together. GHRH creates no pulse of their own, only adds to whatever is happening naturally. If there is a pulse occurring then GHRH increases the GH release, once at saturation dose the body is not going to do much more. You are better off using a GHRP with DAC, You will get a synergistic effects due to the suppression of somatostatin and the fact that GHRP increases GH release per-somatotrope, while GHRH (GRF) increases the number of somatotropes releasing GH...

 

[GW15]

Then how are you not impressed by ModGRF? Even subQ giving results like that. What else can do that?
For the original Question i do not believe it is worth doing ModGRF and DAC together.

As I said before in all combos like ModGRF+GHRP (given s.c!!!) the only effective stuff is GHRP! Most of ModGRF die at the injection site. And GHRP rise GH - that's all!

The same For the original Question - ModGRF will not give any significant effect to DAC. You should better add GHRP or Ipam

 

[DrNat]

As I said before in all combos like ModGRF+GHRP (given s.c!!!) the only effective stuff is GHRP! Most of ModGRF die at the injection site. And GHRP rise GH - that's all!

The same For the original Question - ModGRF will not give any significant effect to DAC. You should better add GHRP or Ipam

While i agree with you on the adding GHRP with the DAC rather than ModGRF, which i stated above.. I look at the graph you gave, i saw how much just GHRP elevated GH on its own, i saw how much ModGRF elevated GH on its own, while not as much as the GHRP it did it alot more than baseline, BUT then you see when you COMBINE the two, there is a lot larger GH pulse then if you did them separately.

GHRP is more effective than GHRH BUT not THE ONLY effective stuff.. Both of those blood results you posted would not have had such a large pulse if they did not use GHRH along with the GHRP.. That is all :banghead:

 

[Scrawny1]

1. I agree IV is much better than SubQ, of course... This does not mean GHRH is useless, maybe the SubQ is not the best delivery method but if using IV provides such a massive result then it is not useless. People may choose to do IV or SubQ.
2. Alpha used 100mcg of ModGRf not 500mcg
http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/1361577-post194.html
3. 12.8 is not a bad result for SubQ when you consider the normal GH surge may be 0.01, how can you not understand that?
4. Show me what else SubQ will give these results?

Either way i'd take a SubQ GH of 12.8 anyday over having to IV myself all the time !!!!

btw....thank you, from all of us lurkers.

 

[GW15]

btw....thank you, from all of us lurkers.

And where is my "Great info! Thanks!", ha???

 

[Gators]

And where is my "Great info! Thanks!", ha???

Maybe try the "seeking attention" forum

 

[GW15]

Maybe try the "seeking attention" forum

Maybe somebody need good upbringing?
When smbd give your good info that was missed by everybody in the world, maybe you need to say "thanks"?
Instead of that all I hear is crap...
You even can not understand the worth of this info Looks like I am a man from 25th century talking about the antigravity...
"Do not cast pearls before swine"

 

[ballennonstop]

GW15 = thread killer

If you have a point or an argument to make then start your own thread. But don't hijack every peptide thread with your own agenda.

 

[Landmonster]

So... anyone researching CJC DAC alongside CKC without DAC?

Is there any possible merit to this approach?

 

[DrNat]

So... anyone researching CJC DAC alongside CKC without DAC?

Is there any possible merit to this approach?

You must of missed my post amongst GW15s multiple clutter posts

GHRPs (GHRP-6, GHRP-2, Hexarelin, Ipamorelin): “increases GH release from somatotrope on its own and makes environment safe for GHRH”
Like cardiac shock paddles. You administer a GHRP and a pulse of GH is created. This is predictable and reliable across all normal people. They do this by reducing somatostatin release from the hypothalamus and reducing somatostatin influence at the pituitary.

GHRH (cjc-1295 modGRF(1-29) “increases the amount of somatropes and amplifying the GHRP induced GH pulse”

Creates no pulse. It only adds to whatever is happening naturally. If there is a pulse occurring then GHRH increases the GH release. If no pulse is occurring when GHRH is administered then it will have little effect on GH release as GHRH only works on GH release if naturally occurring somatostin isn't currently active.

So THAT is the time to take your modified GRF(1-29) (only form of GHRH worth taking) because it will now work since somatostin isn't around. So no point using GHRH alone, has to be taken with GHRP otherwise its next to useless by itself due to the somatostin as we can’t know when our levels are high or low, we need the GHRP to reduce them. <-- That is UNLESS DAC is constantly making GHRH amplifying the pulse and when somatostin isnt around you will get a pulse.. Why add ModGRF to this ? it will not create a "super" pulse.. waste of money

 

[Oblix]

You must of missed my post amongst GW15s multiple clutter posts

GHRPs (GHRP-6, GHRP-2, Hexarelin, Ipamorelin): “increases GH release from somatotrope on its own and makes environment safe for GHRH”
Like cardiac shock paddles. You administer a GHRP and a pulse of GH is created. This is predictable and reliable across all normal people. They do this by reducing somatostatin release from the hypothalamus and reducing somatostatin influence at the pituitary.

GHRH (cjc-1295 modGRF(1-29) “increases the amount of somatropes and amplifying the GHRP induced GH pulse”

Creates no pulse. It only adds to whatever is happening naturally. If there is a pulse occurring then GHRH increases the GH release. If no pulse is occurring when GHRH is administered then it will have little effect on GH release as GHRH only works on GH release if naturally occurring somatostin isn't currently active.

So THAT is the time to take your modified GRF(1-29) (only form of GHRH worth taking) because it will now work since somatostin isn't around. So no point using GHRH alone, has to be taken with GHRP otherwise its next to useless by itself due to the somatostin as we can’t know when our levels are high or low, we need the GHRP to reduce them. <-- That is UNLESS DAC is constantly making GHRH amplifying the pulse and when somatostin isnt around you will get a pulse.. Why add ModGRF to this ? it will not create a "super" pulse.. waste of money

So if using CJC-1295 with Dac, then it is only effective at making the GRHP work better. Then why does Dac work so well in higher doses with small amounts of GRHP?

Your saying CJC-1295 with Dac will nothing at all by it self?