CJC-1295 - Are we using enough?

**Sworder** · 10-28-2012, 03:37 AM

I am sure you have heard about the 100mcg saturation point or 1mcg/kg bw to be more exact. My question becomes the following: Is this true?

I was looking around at various studies and they seem to have higher doses of CJC-1295 and results are dose-dependent. If you have any information, thoughts, comments, please share. Thanks beforehand!

A placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study of a growth hormone releasing factor in HIV-infected patients with abdominal fat accumulation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16052083

Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the effects of TH9507, a novel growth hormone releasing factor, on abdominal fat accumulation, metabolic and safety parameters in HIV-infected patients with central fat accumulation.
DESIGN AND METHODS:

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolling 61 HIV-infected patients with increased waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. Participants were randomized to placebo or 1 or 2 mg TH9507 subcutaneously, once daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was change in abdominal fat, assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and cross-sectional computerized tomography scan. Secondary endpoints included change in insulin -like growth factor-I (IGF-I), metabolic, quality of life, and safety parameters.
RESULTS:

TH9507 resulted in dose-related physiological increases in IGF-I (P < 0.01 for 1 mg (+48%) and 2 mg (+65%) versus placebo). Trunk fat decreased in the 2 mg group versus placebo (0.8, -4.6 and -9.2%; placebo, 1 and 2 mg, respectively, P = 0.014 for 2 mg versus placebo), without significant change in limb fat. Visceral fat (VAT) decreased most in the 2 mg group (-5.4, -3.6 and -15.7%; placebo, 1 and 2 mg, respectively) but this change was not significant versus placebo. Subcutaneous fat (SAT) was preserved and did not change between or within groups. Lean body mass and the ratio of VAT to SAT improved significantly in both treatment groups versus placebo. Triglyceride and the cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein ratio decreased significantly in the 2 mg group versus placebo. Treatment was generally well tolerated without changes in glucose.
CONCLUSIONS:

TH9507 reduced truncal fat, improved the lipid profile and did not increase glucose levels in HIV-infected patients with central fat accumulation. TH9507 may be a beneficial treatment strategy in this population, but longer-term studies with more patients are needed to determine effects on VAT, treatment durability, and safety.

**MuscleInk** · 10-28-2012, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by Sworder

I am sure you have heard about the 100mcg saturation point or 1mcg/kg bw to be more exact. My question becomes the following: Is this true?

I was looking around at various studies and they seem to have higher doses of CJC-1295 and results are dose-dependent. If you have any information, thoughts, comments, please share. Thanks beforehand!

A placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study of a growth hormone releasing factor in HIV-infected patients with abdominal fat accumulation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16052083

Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the effects of TH9507, a novel growth hormone releasing factor, on abdominal fat accumulation, metabolic and safety parameters in HIV-infected patients with central fat accumulation.
DESIGN AND METHODS:

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolling 61 HIV-infected patients with increased waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. Participants were randomized to placebo or 1 or 2 mg TH9507 subcutaneously, once daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was change in abdominal fat, assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and cross-sectional computerized tomography scan. Secondary endpoints included change in insulin -like growth factor-I (IGF-I), metabolic, quality of life, and safety parameters.
RESULTS:

TH9507 resulted in dose-related physiological increases in IGF-I (P < 0.01 for 1 mg (+48%) and 2 mg (+65%) versus placebo). Trunk fat decreased in the 2 mg group versus placebo (0.8, -4.6 and -9.2%; placebo, 1 and 2 mg, respectively, P = 0.014 for 2 mg versus placebo), without significant change in limb fat. Visceral fat (VAT) decreased most in the 2 mg group (-5.4, -3.6 and -15.7%; placebo, 1 and 2 mg, respectively) but this change was not significant versus placebo. Subcutaneous fat (SAT) was preserved and did not change between or within groups. Lean body mass and the ratio of VAT to SAT improved significantly in both treatment groups versus placebo. Triglyceride and the cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein ratio decreased significantly in the 2 mg group versus placebo. Treatment was generally well tolerated without changes in glucose.
CONCLUSIONS:

TH9507 reduced truncal fat, improved the lipid profile and did not increase glucose levels in HIV-infected patients with central fat accumulation. TH9507 may be a beneficial treatment strategy in this population, but longer-term studies with more patients are needed to determine effects on VAT, treatment durability, and safety.

I'm conducting a similar study in CA towards end of year/early next year.

**Sworder** · 10-28-2012, 04:02 AM

Nice. Let me know if you need a volunteer!

**Times Roman** · 10-28-2012, 06:13 AM

it's not really a saturation point, but more of a bell shaped curve with 100mcg being the sweet spot, and anything beyond that the incremental increase brings diminishing returns. So your biggest bang for your buck is the 100mcg on average (of course, everyone is a little different I suppose)

**Sworder** · 10-28-2012, 02:09 PM

Yes, I have been over at DatB for a while so I know what you are referring to. BUT! Although I am not trying to be argumentative, how do we know this? Is there anything that can back it up? There aren't a lot of studies on GHRPs but from the few it shows conflicting evidence. Do these peptides even work?

Sometimes you hear crazy numbers that certain peptide protocols are equal to 4-5IU hGH. With nothing to back it up. I have heard the idea that the younger you are the better peptides will work. Because the "mechanism" stops working like it should as you grow older and that is the reason to why natural GH levels decline with age. I haven't seen anything to support that, but I guess it would make sense..

It's kind of like that infamous "study" that showed that stanzolol make tendons brittle, nandrolone /EQ increases collagen synthesis and so forth. It has been prevalent bro-science for a while nothing to substantiate the thought. I can copy/paste the article but I am sure you have heard of this before; that nandrolone is shown to help joints.