Source comparison
CJC-1295 Tendon Healing: Protocol Comparison
Dosing Frequency 1–2× weekly 2–3× daily N/A DAC offers compliance advantage for multi-month protocols IGF-1 Elevation Pattern Sustained 1.5–2.5× baseline for 6–8 days Pulsatile peaks 2–4× baseline for 2–3 hours post-injection Baseline physiological levels Sust
This comparison does not assign a generated winner or score.
- Dosing Frequency
- 1–2× weekly
- 2–3× daily
- N/A
- DAC offers compliance advantage for multi-month protocols
- IGF-1 Elevation Pattern
- Sustained 1.5–2.5× baseline for 6–8 days
- Pulsatile peaks 2–4× baseline for 2–3 hours post-injection
- Baseline physiological levels
- Sustained elevation better suited to chronic tissue remodelling
- Typical Dose Range
- 100–200 mcg per injection
- Equivalent per-injection dosing but vastly different cumulative exposure
- Evidence Quality
- Animal models + limited case series
- Animal models + anecdotal reports
- Randomised controlled trials
- Rehab protocols have strongest clinical validation; peptides remain investigational
- Cost (12-week protocol)
- Moderate (8–24 injections total)
- High (168–252 injections total)
- Low
- Non-DAC frequency drives total cost higher despite similar per-dose pricing
- Compatibility with Mechanical Loading
- High. Stable levels support ongoing collagen synthesis
- High. Pulsatile approach mimics natural anabolic windows
- High. Loading is primary driver of adaptation
- Peptides may amplify mechanical stimulus but cannot replace it
- The comparison underscores a critical reality: no peptide protocol substitutes for structured mechanical loading. Tendons adapt to tensile stress. Eccentric loading, progressive resistance, and controlled return-to-activity timelines drive tissue remodelling regardless of pharmacological intervention. CJC-1295 may accelerate the timeline or improve the quality of healed tissue, but the mechanical stimulus remains the primary driver.