CJC-1295 w/DAC more effective than w/o DAC?
Wasn't stating a fact but from the research I have been doing, short acting GHR's do not raise or do not maintain higher levels of IGF-1 whereas CJC-1295 w/DAC does. I been trying to confirm this and did a few searches on different boards and only really find stuff about the "bleed". Haven't come across any blood labs using only those peptides and measuring IGF-1. Most I find are 1-29 combined with a GHRP and only GH levels.
I never bought in to the "you don't want a GH bleed" crowd because if I am looking for unnatural results why would I want to mimic natural pulsations of GH.
Anyway I went through Pubmed studies and didn't bookmark them but found these two rather quickly. The first discussing CJC1295 DAC and the other GHRH 1-29 and in the DAC study IGF1 not only elevated but stayed elevated and continued elevating. In the 1-29 study there was an intial boost in IGF but it returned to baseline over time despite continued treatment. In the second one it was in GH deficient children but I would think the information is relevant.
Links below. Going to continue searching articles but does anyone that favors the 1-29 over DAC have a counterpoint backed by science that I am missing?
Prolonged stimulation of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I secretion by CJC-1295, a long-acting analog of GH-releasing hormone, ... - PubMed - NCBI - w/DAC
A comparative study of growth hormone (GH) and GH-releasing hormone(1-29)-NH2 for stimulation of growth in children with GH deficiency. - PubMed - NCBI - GRF 1-29