DOSE CONTEXT · RESEARCH ONLY
CJC-1295: Doses Used in the Research Literature
The microgram-per-kilogram doses recorded in human pharmacokinetic studies and the microgram doses used in animal work — described as study methodology, never as human-use guidance.
Doses Used in the Research Literature
The CJC-1295 dosage figures that exist come from a handful of studies, and they are research doses, not human-use recommendations. The human pharmacokinetic studies used single subcutaneous doses of 30, 60, or 90 micrograms per kilogram of body weight [1] [3]. The GHRH-knockout mouse growth study used a fixed 2 micrograms per dose, administered at 24-, 48-, or 72-hour intervals [4].
Those are the doses used in research — the entire controlled-trial dose record for the compound. Community and clinic protocols for the no-DAC Modified GRF 1-29 and for the CJC-1295/ipamorelin pairing commonly cite fixed 100 to 300 microgram doses, but these are not derived from controlled human trials [1]. This site describes what studies administered; it does not recommend any dose for any person.
What the Dose Numbers Actually Describe
A dose figure means little without its study. The 30, 60, and 90 micrograms/kg used in the human work were single-administration doses chosen to characterize pharmacokinetics — how the molecule rises and clears — not a maintenance regimen anyone followed over time [1] [3]. At those doses, mean GH rose 2- to 10-fold and IGF-1 rose 1.5- to 3-fold; the higher single doses also raised basal GH roughly 7.5-fold one week later [1] [3].
The mouse figure is even more specific to its context: 2 micrograms in a GHRH-knockout animal was the amount that, given once daily, fully normalized growth — and the same amount spaced to 48 or 72 hours did not [4]. That result is about dosing interval as much as dose size, and it only generalizes to the question the study asked, which was whether a long-acting analog could restore GH-axis growth on an infrequent schedule. None of these numbers transfers to a human-use recommendation.
Route Studied
The route used in the studies is subcutaneous injection; early GRF(1-29) pharmacokinetic work also used intravenous administration [1]. Oral bioavailability is negligible because CJC-1295 is a peptide that the gut would degrade, so no studied route is oral. This is a description of study methodology, not a human-use instruction. The subcutaneous route is what produced the GH and IGF-1 data summarized across this site, and it is the route the half-life figures are anchored to.
Reconstitution and Handling in Research
CJC-1295 is supplied as a lyophilized peptide. In research handling, it is reconstituted with bacteriostatic water and refrigerated. The four amino-acid substitutions confer DPP-IV and protease resistance, and the DAC conjugation confers the multi-day duration; neither changes the fact that the material is handled as a laboratory reagent. This describes laboratory handling, not human use. The same lyophilized-then-reconstituted form is what analytical labs work with when they characterize the peptide by mass spectrometry [6].
DAC-Variant Dosing in Studies
The human pharmacokinetic studies that established CJC-1295 DAC kinetics used 30 to 90 micrograms/kg subcutaneously [1] [3]. No controlled trial establishes a human-use dose, and the long half-life means a single dose sustains exposure for days — the estimated 5.8-8.1 day half-life and up-to-28-day IGF-1 elevation came from exactly these dose levels [1]. The duration is the reason the dosing schedule in the GHRH-knockout mouse mattered: once-daily normalized growth, less-frequent dosing did not [4].
CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin Dosing in Research
Community protocols often cite fixed microgram doses for the CJC-1295/ipamorelin pairing, but these are not derived from controlled human trials. The published CJC-1295 pharmacokinetic data used 30 to 90 micrograms/kg of the GHRH analog alone [1] [3]; no controlled study establishes a dose for the two-peptide combination in healthy adults. The mechanistic rationale for the pairing is sound, but the specific microgram figures circulating online have no controlled-trial basis.