Source comparison
CJC-1295 No DAC vs Tesamorelin: Research Protocol Comparison
Amino Acid Length 29 residues with 4 DPP-IV-resistant substitutions 44 residues with N-terminal trans-3-hexenoic acid modification Tesamorelin's longer sequence preserves native GHRH structure; CJC truncates to active core Half-Life 6–8 days post subcutaneous
This comparison does not assign a generated winner or score.
- Amino Acid Length
- 29 residues with 4 DPP-IV-resistant substitutions
- 44 residues with N-terminal trans-3-hexenoic acid modification
- Tesamorelin's longer sequence preserves native GHRH structure; CJC truncates to active core
- Half-Life
- 6–8 days post subcutaneous injection
- 26–38 minutes post subcutaneous injection
- CJC-1295 no DAC achieves 200× longer systemic exposure per dose
- Dosing Frequency
- 2–3 times weekly (100–200 mcg per dose typical research range)
- Daily administration required (1–2 mg per dose clinical standard)
- CJC reduces injection burden; tesamorelin demands daily compliance
- IGF-1 Kinetics
- Sustained elevation 1.5–2.0× baseline for 7–10 days
- Transient peaks 1.3–1.6× baseline returning to baseline within 12 hours
- CJC produces chronic anabolic signaling; tesamorelin preserves pulsatility
- Visceral Fat Reduction
- Moderate, non-selective adipose loss
- Clinically validated 15–18% VAT reduction at 26 weeks (FDA-approved indication)
- Tesamorelin demonstrates superior visceral adipose specificity in human trials
- Receptor Desensitization Risk
- Higher. Continuous receptor occupancy may downregulate GHRH receptor density over time
- Lower. Pulsatile exposure maintains receptor sensitivity via preserved feedback
- Chronic CJC use risks tachyphylaxis; tesamorelin preserves endogenous regulation