# GH Peptide Stack



## tommyguns232 (Feb 25, 2014)

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


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Feb 25, 2014)

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.


----------



## tl0311 (Feb 25, 2014)

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


----------



## tl0311 (Feb 25, 2014)

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


----------



## Tyler114 (Feb 25, 2014)

tl0311 said:


> 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?   what are you talking about?

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


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Feb 25, 2014)

tl0311 said:


> 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?


----------



## tl0311 (Feb 25, 2014)

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


----------



## tl0311 (Feb 25, 2014)

Im using  a 31 gauge 5/16 slin pin. so sub q


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Feb 25, 2014)

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.


----------



## blergs. (Feb 25, 2014)

Paranoid Fitness said:


> 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.
> ...



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...


----------



## Jimmyinkedup (Feb 25, 2014)

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...


----------



## tl0311 (Feb 25, 2014)

Maybe a bad batch then. I'll try my ghrp-2 from a different company tonight


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Feb 25, 2014)

blergs. said:


> 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 *G*rowth hormone  *R*eleasing *F*actor  (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 *D*rug *A*ffinity *C*omplex, 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.​


----------



## tl0311 (Feb 25, 2014)

come to think of it, stomach was red and sore the day after inj, at inj. sight


----------



## blergs. (Feb 25, 2014)

Paranoid Fitness said:


> 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.


----------



## blergs. (Feb 26, 2014)

I found this in my files, thought I would add it for educational purposes :


----------



## SuperLift (Feb 26, 2014)

I agree with P Fitness.  Mod-Grf  also referred to as (CJC1295 no Dac).    Seems to be a synergistic effect when combined with GHRP.


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Feb 27, 2014)

First of all, to blergs...Please don't think I am trying to engage in an argument or confrontation with you as I most certainly am not.
I've read your posts and I know you are knowledgeable and insightful. 

I mean no offense too anyone with my comments and assertions in this post.
I apologize if this post offends anyone.
I also do not wish to imply dishonesty on the part of any research chem company.
These companies are simply misinformed about what they're selling.

My comments are based on my own research and testing, yours could very well have yielded different results than mine and I wouldn't try to dispute it if they did.

I've seen that same chart over and over in my research.
It is included in the exchange below.
I am copying and pasting from Dat's site instead of posting links because otherwise you have to be a member to view it.

The following is an exchange that took place on Dat's site back in 2009.
It is what lead me to do more investigating and more than a little research.
My conclusion, partly based on actual mass spec results (which were lost in a house fire while I away was getting my ass shot off), was the CJC 1293 being offered by peptide companies (even companies who's peptides are "US Made") is in fact Modified Grf 1-29...nothing more, nothing less.
They don't understand what they're selling. They are not chemists. They get the peptides in unlabeled vials in plain white boxes and label them according to what they believe is the correct "name" for the substance in the vial.

The user Bobaslaw (in the exchange below) makes the statement "Actually now that I think about it its vendors that are all tied together" which I believe to be true only in the fact that the peptides they are selling originate from the same few manufacturers.
Could Bobaslaw have been wrong in his assertions? Sure.
Could I be wrong? Absolutely. My testing has borne the results I speak of but my testing could be flawed so it boils down to what I believe.

Choose to believe me, choose to disbelieve me or choose to take it with a grain of salt.
I am only trying to inform anyone who cares what the substances most likely actually are.

Here is the above mentioned exchange, quoted...



fm2002 said:


> A popular source for Peptides called Peptides Di%#@t is offering this product:
> 
> CJC-1293 AKA GRF (1-29)
> 
> Does anyone know if this is modified GRF(1-29) with approximately 30 minute half life or really CJC-1293 ? I'm pretty sure they are 2 different animals and am confused.





Bobaslaw said:


> It's a mistake that has propagated to more than a handful of vendors.  Actually now that I think about it its vendors that are all tied together.
> 
> They mistakenly believe that CJC-1293 is the technical name for Tetrasubstituted GRF 1-29 AKA modGRF1-29.
> 
> ...


----------



## blergs. (Feb 27, 2014)

Paranoid Fitness said:


> First of all, to blergs...Please don't think I am trying to engage in an argument or confrontation with you as I most certainly am not.
> I've read your posts and I know you are knowledgeable and insightful.
> 
> I mean no offense too anyone with my comments and assertions in this post.
> ...



Hey,
The last thing I think is you are trying to argue with me 
This is just a debate, its how we learn and how other members learn. 
and you are posting useful info because many people don't have a clue about the whole CJC1293 w/o dac thing going on at many places.
This thread is informative only because we are debating.
So no worries man! 
Just stating some places are not doing it. others not aware of it and im sure others that just dont care and are just going with what ever trend to try to sell more product.
I don't take it as an attack don't worry.


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Feb 27, 2014)

blergs. said:


> Hey,
> The last thing I think is you are trying to argue with me
> This is just a debate, its how we learn and how other members learn.
> and you are posting useful info because many people don't have a clue about the whole CJC1293 w/o dac thing going on at many places.
> ...



It is members like you that make me happy to be a part of these boards.


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Feb 27, 2014)

OK, so I've been in touch with CEM partly do to my conversation with blergs.

CEM informed me that the CJC-1293 they sell *IS INDEED CJC-1293* and I have no reason to doubt that.
I apologize for assuming differently. It was a mistake on my part.
I should have asked CEM before posting so I could've had the most up-to-date information available.
Please understand that I was just going off of my own research and fact-finding.
I was never implying dishonesty on anyone's part.

CEM is now my go-to source for RC and peptides.
I just placed an order.


----------



## StanG (Mar 3, 2014)

OP either one would work well. The cjc1293 or the Sermorelin. I personally would recommend the Sermorelin. It will result in a larger GH pulse than the cjc1293. That being said both are great stacked with GHRP2. The one consideration is that you may experience a slight increase in prolactin. The increase is within clinically normal levels so it is not really an issue however if you are on aromatizing androgens like test lets say and your e2 is slightly elevated you may want to take some prami along with your cycle and peptide stack. You can ick up the prami from CEM as well. Best of luck..


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Mar 3, 2014)

Remeber,

CEM products are for research purposes only, not for human consumption.


----------



## tl0311 (Mar 3, 2014)

Did a semi controlled test.  It was the imam


----------

