This listing names two research compounds that act through different mechanisms on the growth-hormone axis. The published studies examined them separately, so component evidence is all the cited literature supports, not a combined effect, and not a specific ratio.
Two distinct signals
CJC-1295 is discussed as a long-acting analogue of growth-hormone-releasing hormone. Two short randomized controlled studies in healthy adults reported prolonged stimulation of growth hormone and IGF-I secretion with long-acting CJC-1295 given alone. Teichman et al., 2006
Ipamorelin is a pentapeptide described as a selective growth hormone secretagogue, studied in cell preparations, rats and swine with receptor pharmacology resembling that of growth-hormone-releasing peptides. It is therefore a different entry point to the same axis, not a duplicate of the first. Raun et al., 1998
What the blend listing does not specify
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Component ratio | The catalogue lists a 10 mg blend. How that is divided between components is not stated, so it is unknown. |
| DAC status | Whether the CJC-1295 component is the DAC (long-acting) form or a non-DAC form is supplier-specified and not stated here. |
| Half-life figures | Published long-acting pharmacology cannot be quoted as a specification for this vial. |
What has not been shown
The cited studies do not demonstrate synergy between the two components, and they do not report sleep, muscle or anti-ageing outcomes. Claims of that kind would require trials designed around those endpoints in a defined population. Teichman et al., 2006 Raun et al., 1998
Study context and limits
- CJC-1295 evidence cited here is from short randomized studies in healthy adults, of the long-acting form given alone.
- Ipamorelin evidence cited here is preclinical: cells, rats and swine.
- Neither study examined this blend, at this quantity, in this presentation.
Checklist for blend comparisons
- Write down each component name exactly as listed.
- Mark ratio and molecular form as “not stated” unless documented.
- Keep each component’s literature attached to that component.
- Do not transfer a long-acting half-life figure onto an unspecified form.
CJC-1295 with and without DAC: a naming distinction, not a detail
Short answer: “CJC-1295” is used online for two different things: a GHRH analogue carrying a Drug Affinity Complex (DAC) that extends its persistence, and the same peptide backbone without that modification. The published long-acting pharmacokinetic work is about the DAC-bearing form and does not transfer to a non-DAC product. Teichman et al., 2006
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| With DAC | The form studied in the published single-dose work on a long-acting GHRH analogue. Its reported persistence is a property of that modified molecule. |
| Without DAC (often written “mod GRF 1-29”) | The unmodified backbone. Persistence findings from the DAC literature are not evidence about it. |
| What a listing name settles | Nothing on its own. “CJC-1295” without a stated modification leaves the question open. |
| Which form this listing is | Unknown to us in writing. We do not have a supplier statement specifying DAC or non-DAC, so we do not claim either, and we do not apply the long-acting findings to this listing. |
Component evidence versus blend evidence
A blend adds a second gap. Published work on each component separately is evidence about that component at the doses and conditions studied. It is not evidence about a combination, and the ratio in a blend changes what is present. Where no ratio is documented, the honest statement is that the per-component quantities are unknown, not an estimate.
Three questions this comparison leaves open
- Which form (DAC or non-DAC) is present, stated in writing.
- The quantity of each component, not only the combined total.
- Whether any report covers the blend as supplied, or only single peptides.
Frequently asked
Is the 10 mg split 5 mg and 5 mg?
That is not stated, so it should not be assumed. Component allocation is only known when the listing or supplier documentation specifies it.
Do CJC-1295 and ipamorelin work the same way?
No. One is described as a growth-hormone-releasing hormone analogue; the other as a selective growth hormone secretagogue. They are distinct signals studied separately.
Does combining them produce better results?
The cited studies do not establish that. Synergy is a specific empirical claim that would need research on the combination itself.
References
Each reference describes a particular study or document. It does not verify any Proof Line Peptides lot, and it does not indicate that a product is authorized for sale in Canada.
- Teichman SL et al. Prolonged stimulation of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I secretion by CJC-1295, a long-acting analog of GH-releasing hormone, in healthy adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006. doi:10.1210/jc.2005-1536 View source
- Raun K et al. Ipamorelin, the first selective growth hormone secretagogue. Eur J Endocrinol. 1998. doi:10.1530/eje.0.1390552 View source
