On this page
What it is
A modified fragment of growth-hormone-releasing hormone. Two forms circulate and are frequently confused: one with a drug affinity complex (DAC) that binds albumin and extends the half-life to days, and one without, which acts over minutes.
How it is proposed to work
GHRH receptor agonism at the pituitary. The DAC version produces a sustained elevation, which pharmacologically is closer to a continuous signal than to the pulsatile pattern the class is usually credited with preserving — an important distinction the community often collapses.
Approved medical uses
None. CJC-1295 has no approved human medical indication in the jurisdictions we track. Any use is outside an approved label.
Human research
Each entry states what the study found and, separately, what it cannot show.
- Randomised controlled trial2006
CJC-1295 ascending-dose trials in healthy adults
Finding. One 2006 report of two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled ascending-dose trials of CJC-1295 — which the authors describe as a long-acting analogue of GH-releasing hormone — in healthy subjects aged 21-61, run over 28 and 49 days at two investigational sites. CJC-1295 or placebo was given subcutaneously as one of four ascending single doses in the first study and as two or three weekly or biweekly doses in the second. The stated main outcome measures were peak concentrations and area under the curve of GH and IGF-1, with standard pharmacokinetic parameters for CJC-1295. After a single injection there were dose-dependent increases in mean plasma GH concentrations of 2- to 10-fold for six days or more and in mean plasma IGF-1 concentrations of 1.5- to 3-fold for 9-11 days; the estimated half-life was 5.8-8.1 days. After multiple doses, mean IGF-1 remained above baseline for up to 28 days.
Limitation. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic endpoints only. Raising a hormone is not an outcome: beyond safety and tolerability, the stated main outcome measures include no body-composition, functional or other clinical endpoint. Area under the curve was among those measures, but the results given are fold-increases in mean plasma concentrations, so the fold figures are concentration results and should not be read as AUC magnitudes. The abstract states only that healthy subjects aged 21-61 were studied, so the number enrolled cannot be verified from this source, and the trials ran 28 and 49 days — too short to show what a sustained IGF-1 elevation does over time. The authors concluded CJC-1295 was safe and relatively well tolerated, qualifying that to particular dose levels, and reported no serious adverse reactions; but with enrolment unstated, exposure no longer than 49 days and safety not among the stated main outcome measures, that is not a safety finding.
Preclinical research
Animal and laboratory work. Useful for generating hypotheses; it cannot establish that something works in people.
No preclinical studies catalogued.
Potential safety concerns
- CautionInsufficient
Sustained IGF-1 elevation from the DAC form is not the same exposure profile as a physiological pulse, and the long-term consequences have not been studied in humans.
- CautionEstablished
The two forms have radically different durations of action and are sold under overlapping names. Confusing them is a common and consequential error.
- SeriousInsufficient
No adequate human safety dataset. Development did not proceed to the point where one would exist.
Known interactions and contraindication considerations
- Effects on glucose handling are plausible from the mechanism and uncharacterised in practice.
- Not characterised alongside secretagogues, which is how it is almost always used.
This list is not exhaustive and is not a substitute for a clinician reviewing your full medication history.
Regulatory status
Status is shown per jurisdiction and is accurate only as of the date stated. Where a compound is approved, the approval is bound to a specific formulation, manufacturer and indication — shown in the detail column.
| Jurisdiction | Standing | Detail |
|---|---|---|
United States FDA | Unapproved / investigational as of 1 Jun 2026 | No marketing authorisation. Sold as research material, which is not an approval of any kind. |
European Union EMA | Unapproved / investigational as of 1 Jun 2026 | No marketing authorisation. |
India CDSCO | Unapproved / investigational as of 1 Jun 2026 | A first-time synthetically manufactured peptide falls under the new-drug pathway. Central Licensing Authority permission is required before import or manufacture for sale or distribution. |
How it is being used
What the grey community actually runs, the reasoning they give, and our read on whether it follows from known biology. This is observation, not evidence, and not a recommendation.
Growth-hormone elevation for recomposition and recovery
What is run
Paired with a secretagogue and dosed away from food, usually pre-sleep. The version without DAC is used by people wanting to preserve a pulse pattern; the DAC version by people wanting fewer injections.
Their mechanistic reasoning
That GHRH receptor agonism raises growth hormone while remaining subject to somatostatin feedback, so it is safer than exogenous growth hormone, and that pairing with a ghrelin-receptor agonist produces a larger pulse than either alone.
Reported in the community’s own terms. Not our position.
Stacked with
- Ipamorelin—The most common pairing — separate receptors, and ipamorelin avoids the cortisol and prolactin rise of older secretagogues.
- A caloric surplus and progressive training—The community generally acknowledges the peptides do nothing without this.
Regimen shape
- Dose
- figure withheld
- Scale
- Microgram-scale
- Route
- Subcutaneous injection
- Frequency
- Daily for the non-DAC form; less often for DAC
- Timing
- Pre-sleep and fasted — food blunts the pulse
- Duration
- Multi-week blocks with breaks
Our read
The receptor logic and the feedback argument are both correct, and the food-timing rationale is well founded — carbohydrate and fat genuinely blunt the response. The unexamined step is whether a larger pulse in a non-deficient adult changes anything. Also worth noting: the DAC version produces sustained elevation, which is closer to a continuous signal than the pulsatility the class is credited with preserving. People choosing DAC for convenience are often giving up the exact property they cite as the reason for using this class.
What the community reports
The comparison is between how sure the community is and how much is actually known — evidence strength, not direction. A compound can have solid research that came out negative.
Long-established and widely trusted within the bodybuilding community, with detailed protocol conventions that are followed carefully. Confidence rests more on the coherence of the mechanism than on anyone measuring an outcome.
Commonly reported as helping
- Improved sleep depth, the most consistently reported effect by a clear margin
- Better recovery between sessions
- Skin and hair quality changes, reported anecdotally
- Gradual body-composition change over months
Also reported, when it goes wrong
- Water retention and puffiness, especially early
- Tingling or numbness in hands, reported often enough to be a known effect
- Lethargy on waking for some
- A substantial group reporting nothing noticeable at all
Why these reports can mislead
Sleep is the most-reported benefit and the most confounded — people start these protocols alongside training and diet changes, and the injection is taken at bedtime as part of a new routine. Body-composition reports come from people simultaneously eating and training with fresh intent.
Direct quotations are not published here yet. We will only carry verbatim reports once they are sourced, dated and checked — an unattributed quote is a testimonial, and testimonials are exactly what this section exists to replace.
Watch for, in this use specifically
- Confusing the DAC and non-DAC forms is a common and consequential error — their durations of action differ by orders of magnitude.
- Get baseline and follow-up IGF-1 and fasting glucose. These are the measures that tell you what is actually happening.
Active clinical trials
No registered trials currently tracked for CJC-1295.
What remains unknown
The questions that would change our assessment if they were answered.
- Does raising GH and IGF-1 in a healthy adult change body composition or function at all?
- Does sustained rather than pulsatile elevation carry different risk?
- Why did development stop? The public record does not clearly say.
References
Editorial change history
When we change a grade or a regulatory note, we log it here rather than editing quietly.
Dossier created.
Spotted something wrong? Tell us — we publish corrections.