# CJC-1295 Doses Used in the Research Literature

> CJC-1295 dosage in research: human PK studies used single subcutaneous doses of 30, 60, or 90 micrograms per kilogram. Research-context only — this site does not provide human dosing.

What was administered, to which species, at which dose, by which route — reported as research values. This site does not provide human dosing for CJC-1295.

## CJC-1295 Doses Used in the Research Literature

CJC-1295 dosage in the published literature is narrow and research-defined. Human pharmacokinetic studies used single subcutaneous doses of 30, 60, or 90 micrograms per kilogram [1] [3]. The GHRH-knockout mouse growth study used 2 micrograms per dose at intervals of 24, 48, or 72 hours [4]. These are the doses that generated the data this site summarizes — they are reported here as research values, not as a regimen for any person.

This site does not provide human dosing for CJC-1295. The compound is not approved for human use, and no validated human dose exists. Community and clinic "protocols" — commonly citing 100-to-300-microgram fixed doses for the no-DAC form or for CJC-1295 and ipamorelin combinations — are not derived from controlled human trials [1]. They circulate widely; they are not the published evidence.

## Routes and handling in the literature

Subcutaneous injection was the primary route in the human pharmacokinetic studies, with intravenous administration used in early GHRH(1-29) PK work [1]. Oral bioavailability is negligible — CJC-1295 is a peptide and would be degraded in the gut — so the studied routes are parenteral.

In research handling, the lyophilized peptide is reconstituted with bacteriostatic water and refrigerated. The four substitutions confer dipeptidylpeptidase-IV and protease resistance, and the DAC conjugation confers the multi-day duration; neither alters the fact that this is laboratory-handling context, not a human-use instruction [1].

## Why community protocols are not evidence

The gap between the published doses and the circulating "protocols" is the core of why a due-diligence reading matters. The published doses come from early-phase pharmacokinetic studies designed to characterize kinetics in small numbers of volunteers [1] [3]. The protocols come from forums and product pages, with no controlled-trial provenance and no efficacy or safety endpoints behind them.

This distinction is not pedantic. A dose with a half-life of 5.8 to 8.1 days behaves very differently from one cleared in hours, and a protocol that does not specify the variant — DAC or no-DAC — has not specified what it is dosing [1]. The [DAC vs no-DAC pharmacokinetics](/dac-vs-no-dac) page is the prerequisite for reading any dosing claim, and the [full reference list](/references) is where the underlying studies can be checked directly.

The animal evidence reinforces why frequency, not just amount, is variant-dependent: in GHRH-knockout mice, two micrograms of CJC-1295 once every 24 hours normalized growth, while dosing every 48 to 72 hours was progressively less effective [4]. That schedule only makes sense for a long-acting compound. A dosing figure detached from its half-life and its species is a number without a context, which is exactly what most circulating protocols offer.

---

A spatial reading of the published CJC-1295 record — the human pharmacokinetics floated forward, the DAC and no-DAC forms held apart, the data gaps left in plain view, and no clinic, vendor, or prescription behind the glass.