Differences in CJC's

[M302_Imola]

As far as a GHRH to go along with your GHRP of choice I know that Mod GRF1-29 is ideal. Now the question lies in the nomenclature that some of these research chem vendors use when describing GHRH's. I realize that DAC is the enemy as it leads to very long half-lifes and GH bleed. So what is the difference between CJC-1293 no DAC and CJC-1295 no DAC in terms of half-life? I have been the CJC-1293 no DAC but the more I read I think this is an unstable peptide w/ a VERY short half-life...would CJC-1295 no DAC have a longer half-life as its chemical structure is much more like Mod GRF1-29?

[DCannon]

The term "cjc" actually refers to the DAC so when companies say cjc1295 w/o DAC it really makes no sense.

Cjc 1295 is the same thing as modified Grf1-29 except it has the DAC.

[M302_Imola]

The term "cjc" actually refers to the DAC so when companies say cjc1295 w/o DAC it really makes no sense.

Cjc 1295 is the same thing as modified Grf1-29 except it has the DAC.

Yeah these companies do make it confusing. So sounds like CJC-1295 no DAC is indeed Mod GRF1-29. Dat was saying that w/ the elimination of the DAC group and lysine also drops off which could lead to early cleavage so I'm not sure how long the half-life is. Is it longer, shorter, or the same as Mod GRF1-29? Not sure I will be able to get a direct answer to my question, just something I have been thinking about. So what is the difference in CJC-1293 no DAC and CJC-1295 no DAC that this particular company sales both of? DCannon what peptides are you currently running? Still getting good results?

[DCannon]

The half-lfe of Mod GRF1-29 is the same as CJC1295 w/o DAC because they are the same sequence.

Cjc1293 is the same as GRF1-29 (single substitution) except it has the DAC
Cjc1295 is the same as modified Grf1-29 (tetra substitution) except it has the DAC

Right now I'm only running 100mcg of modGRF1-29 and Ipa pre-bed. Still seeing good results though.