Ar-r 1293 w/o dac same as 1295 w/o dac?????

[sgt2jay]

simple question here.

I am looking for cjc1295 w/o dac but it looks like Ar-r doesn't carry it. i know that 1293 w/o dac and 1295 w/o dac are differnt but is Ar-r 1293 w/o dac really 1295 w/o dac?

if not will Ar-r soon be carrying 1295 w/o dac

[RUI-Products]

See post below.......

[sgt2jay]

Thank for clearing it up

[Henryhill470]

How do you run this ? Haven't had much knowledge around this ? Is it popular ?

[sgt2jay]

CJC-1293 is CJC-1295 without DAC. CJC-1293 is the proper name for it. http://www.ar-r.com/peptides/cjc-1293-2mgs.html

well now there seemd to be a bit of a debate

no, it isn't. cjc1293 on its own is cjc1293-DAC, just as cjc1295 is cjc1295-DAC, unless specifically listed otherwise they both are DAC. you can have cjc1293 without DAC but simply calling cjc1293 "cjc1295 without DAC" is incorrect.

similar to calling cjc1295 without DAC, "mod grf1-29". they are not the same. mod grf1-29 is the best for our purposes. cjc 1295 without DAC comes next. hopefully once customers begin asking for mod grf1-29 specifically (and refusing when retailers say "oh cjc1295 without DAC is the same thing"), retailers will be forced to offer mod grf1-29 specifically, and not relabel or mistakenly (purposefully or not) misrepresent them as the same product.

What are your thoughts on this from another thread?

[RUI-Products]

Good stuff, Sgt. I'm researching this further.

[RUI-Products]

Sorry for the confusion on this matter, attached is a document which clearly shows the differences between the various GRF products. As you can see, the CJC-1288, CJC-1293, and CJC-1295 all have the DAC (MPA) molecule on the end of the peptide. If they do not have this, then they cannot be called their respective names.



CJC-1293 does contain the DAC (MPA).

Just so you know, the common term “Mod-GRF 1-29”, is simply CJC-1295 without the DAC. In other words, it’s the exact sequence of CJC-1295, but without the K-DAC molecule on the end. Refer to the chart to see what I mean. It is not the normal GRF 1-29 sequence.

The DAC(MPA) extends the half life of the peptides, making it last longer and thus gives it more activity. Without the DAC, the half life of most of these peptides is about 10 minutes, but with the DAC, it is supposedly about 7 days from data provided by clinical trials from pharmaceutical companies. In reality, there isn’t much difference between the 1293 and 1295, other than the 1295 has a longer half life. As you can see from the structure sheet, it is modified even more from the original GRF sequence, thus giving it the longest half life (meaning it lasts the longest). CJC-1295 apparently promotes more deep sleep (slow wave), which is responsible for memory retention and growth. CJC-1295 is basically the latest and greatest version in the evolution of these GRF based peptides, hence why it contains the most changes to its sequence compared to the original GRF 1-29 sequence.

[largerthannormal]

Ar-r here you go.( i just posted this in the IGF section)

1293 w or wo DAC is not the same as cjc 1295 w or wo DAC

cjc1295 no DAC is pretty close to mod grf(1-29) but still not the same

all are different.

heres a lil write up

http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...s#.UQlBRWfb_h4

[largerthannormal]

will the lables be changed?

Sorry for the confusion on this matter, attached is a document which clearly shows the differences between the various GRF products. As you can see, the CJC-1288, CJC-1293, and CJC-1295 all have the DAC (MPA) molecule on the end of the peptide. If they do not have this, then they cannot be called their respective names.



CJC-1293 does contain the DAC (MPA).

Just so you know, the common term “Mod-GRF 1-29”, is simply CJC-1295 without the DAC. In other words, it’s the exact sequence of CJC-1295, but without the K-DAC molecule on the end. Refer to the chart to see what I mean. It is not the normal GRF 1-29 sequence.

The DAC(MPA) extends the half life of the peptides, making it last longer and thus gives it more activity. Without the DAC, the half life of most of these peptides is about 10 minutes, but with the DAC, it is supposedly about 7 days from data provided by clinical trials from pharmaceutical companies. In reality, there isn’t much difference between the 1293 and 1295, other than the 1295 has a longer half life. As you can see from the structure sheet, it is modified even more from the original GRF sequence, thus giving it the longest half life (meaning it lasts the longest). CJC-1295 apparently promotes more deep sleep (slow wave), which is responsible for memory retention and growth. CJC-1295 is basically the latest and greatest version in the evolution of these GRF based peptides, hence why it contains the most changes to its sequence compared to the original GRF 1-29 sequence.

[Juced_porkchop]

Ar-r here you go.( i just posted this in the IGF section)

1293 w or wo DAC is not the same as cjc 1295 w or wo DAC

cjc1295 no DAC is pretty close to mod grf(1-29) but still not the same

all are different.

heres a lil write up

http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...s#.UQlBRWfb_h4

But they are all Mod GRF 1-29's its too vague a term. I think your confused. MOD = modified.
ar-r's explanation seems to make more sense to me.

[largerthannormal]

im not confused i made a boo boo on the 1295 no dac

Main concern here is the 1293 shouldnt be labled as 1295 w/o DAC AKA mod grf (1-29)

am i correct?

[RUI-Products]

im not confused i made a boo boo

Main concern here is the 1293 shouldnt be labled as 1295 w/o DAC AKA mod grf (1-29)

am i correct?

You are correct. We fixed our descriptions.

We grow and learn just like everybody else.

Great stuff....gotta love research.

[largerthannormal]

No worries i made a mistake too!!!

either way ive always used your products and love em!!

[largerthannormal]

Will you guys in the future carry cjc-1295 W/O DAC AKA MOD GRF(1-29) ? I believe most consumers are after this

[RUI-Products]

Will you guys in the future carry cjc-1295 W/O DAC AKA MOD GRF(1-29) ? I believe most consumers are after this

We will look into this.

[sgt2jay]

My question is since the discription was all be it a mistake will there be any type of refund for those who didn't get what they intended to order

[RUI-Products]

We in no way intended to mislead anyone. We based our description off the mainstream information that was avaiable at the time. We very easily could have simply said our cjc1293 is mod grf-1-29 and this would be done. We however do not operate that way. We will move forward and update all our product information as new knowledge comes available and we will do our best to share it with you. We have no plans on issuing any refunds at this time.

[sgt2jay]

Double post

[sgt2jay]

i unerstand you didnt do it intentionaly, or that you intended to mislead, and it wasnt my intention to imply that. it just that myself and a few others I know have invested in that particular product on the understanding that we were getting what we paid for. again i dont mean to give the impression i was mislead. I just thought that a company that stand by it product would also stand by their mistakes.

[largerthannormal]

Sgt2jay, the 1293 still should produce great results, it is only recently people starting understanding the mod grf was better and they have always been using the 1293 with good results. The only difference technically is you are not receiving the pulse effect. You are still benifitting but over long time use it will desensitize . I 100% in now way blame ar because this was the info supplied by the mfg depending upon when they were became a retailer of the product.

I'd run out what you have and reap the benefits.

Think of it as you recieved test prop and ordered cyp or enanth. Still will produce a positive outcome even if it wasn't your intention

[sgt2jay]

Sgt2jay, the 1293 still should produce great results, it is only recently people starting understanding the mod grf was better and they have always been using the 1293 with good results. The only difference technically is you are not receiving the pulse effect. You are still benifitting but over long time use it will desensitize . I 100% in now way blame ar because this was the info supplied by the mfg depending upon when they were became a retailer of the product.

I'd run out what you have and reap the benefits.

Think of it as you recieved test prop and ordered cyp or enanth. Still will produce a positive outcome even if it wasn't your intention

I agree.

my only problem is that the way I understand it 1293 w/dac should only be injected once a week due to the high speak and slow tapper off, and 1295 w/o dac is injected 3x a day. I have been injecting basically 20x more than i need to a week. if you put that in to cost per injection I have spent 2000% more per week then I needed to.

for the fun of it apply your analogy of test prop and test cyp but you are injection 20x more a week than you need to. would there be any health concerns.

Basically i am will just adjust my protocol as needed and carry on.

[largerthannormal]

understandable bro!! sorry you was mislead. I just didnt want fingers pointed at Ar since it was the info they were supplied.

hope i helped in some way of at least making you stop pokin and brought it to everyones attention, hopefully they get some 1295 w/o dac soon.