Source comparison
CJC-1295 Comparison: Stacking Synergy and Side Effect Profiles
CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin None (complementary pathways) 2.8–3.5× vs monotherapy Low (minimal cortisol/prolactin) Body recomposition, recovery, longevity models Gold standard. Most studied and predictable synergy CJC-1295 + GHRP-2 3.0–4.0× vs monotherapy Moderate (
This comparison does not assign a generated winner or score.
- CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin
- None (complementary pathways)
- 2.8–3.5× vs monotherapy
- Low (minimal cortisol/prolactin)
- Body recomposition, recovery, longevity models
- Gold standard. Most studied and predictable synergy
- CJC-1295 + GHRP-2
- 3.0–4.0× vs monotherapy
- Moderate (transient cortisol, appetite stimulation)
- Muscle gain models where appetite increase is tolerable
- Slightly higher GH output than ipamorelin but less selective
- CJC-1295 + GHRP-6
- 3.2–4.2× vs monotherapy
- High (significant appetite stimulation, cortisol spikes)
- Bulking or cachexia models requiring caloric surplus
- Avoid in fat-loss protocols. Appetite effect undermines goals
- CJC-1295 + Hexarelin
- 4.0–5.0× vs monotherapy
- Very high (receptor desensitisation, cortisol/prolactin)
- Short-term intensive protocols (≤4 weeks)
- Highest GH output but unsustainable. Use sparingly
- CJC-1295 + Modified GRF (1-29)
- High (both target GHRH receptors)
- Minimal additional benefit
- Low but redundant mechanism
- Multiple daily pulsatile protocols
- Redundant unless maintaining 24-hour receptor occupancy
- CJC-1295 + IGF-1 LR3
- None (central vs peripheral pathways)
- No synergy (different axes)
- Moderate (hypoglycaemia risk with IGF-1 LR3)
- Simultaneous anabolic and GH modulation studies
- Allows dual investigation but not true synergy