Source comparison
Tesamorelin + Ipamorelin Blend: Cycling Comparison
Continuous (No Cycling) Daily dosing indefinitely None Poor. 22–31% decline by week 8 Short protocols under 6 weeks Not recommended beyond 8 weeks; receptor downregulation inevitable Micro-Cycle (5/2) 5 days on, 2 days off weekly 2 consecutive days weekly Mode
This comparison does not assign a generated winner or score.
- Continuous (No Cycling)
- Daily dosing indefinitely
- None
- Poor. 22–31% decline by week 8
- Short protocols under 6 weeks
- Not recommended beyond 8 weeks; receptor downregulation inevitable
- Micro-Cycle (5/2)
- 5 days on, 2 days off weekly
- 2 consecutive days weekly
- Moderate. Partial recovery maintains 80–90% efficacy
- Metabolic or body composition studies
- Best balance for 12–20 week protocols requiring steady IGF-1 levels
- Macro-Cycle (8–12 week blocks)
- 8–12 weeks on, 4–6 weeks off
- 4–6 weeks complete rest
- Excellent. Full receptor upregulation
- Long-term protocols (6+ months)
- Gold standard for extended research; resets receptor sensitivity completely
- Alternating Pulse Windows
- Daily dosing, rotating AM/PM timing
- Timing variation only
- Minimal. Does not address receptor saturation
- Not applicable
- Ineffective as a cycling strategy; timing variation insufficient
- Micro-cycling offers the most practical compromise for research timelines under six months, while macro-cycling is mandatory for any protocol extending beyond 20 weeks.