CJC-1295 (no DAC) + Ipamorelin: What the Evidence Actually Says
A sober look at the GHRH-plus-ghrelin "push-pull" stack: strong component pharmacology, solid synergy theory, but zero human trials on this combination.
By Research Rats Editorial TeamReviewed by Research Rats Editorial Team
Evidence profile
Assessed 2026-06-13The popular GHRH-plus-ghrelin ‘push-pull’ stack. The synergy principle is real and the components are characterised, but no human trial has ever tested this combination, the headline CJC-1295 human data are for the long-acting DAC form (not the no-DAC used here), ipamorelin failed its one efficacy trial, and their FDA compounding statuses differ — ipamorelin acetate is actively listed under 503B while the CJC-1295 nomination was withdrawn — with both WADA-prohibited.
‘Push-pull’ synergy is a real principle — GHRH + ghrelin agonism release more GH together than alone (shown in humans for GHRH+ghrelin).
Component animal data plus animal/human synergy studies for the GHRH+GHRP principle.
No human trial of this combination; component data are mixed (ipamorelin's efficacy trial failed; the CJC human data are for the DAC form).
The combination is unproven; benefits are inferred from component pharmacology and anecdote.
No controlled human safety data for the combination.
No programme for the combination; community practice only.
Low — plausible idea, no direct evidence.
Component statuses DIFFER: ipamorelin acetate is in ACTIVE FDA Category 2 under 503B (added 29 September 2023); the CJC-1295 nomination was withdrawn and is not in the active table. Both WADA-prohibited; grey-market with DAC/no-DAC mislabelling.
Bars show the state of evidence, not desirability. A strong rating on any axis does not mean a compound is safe, effective, or recommended. Human evidence is often limited. Not medical advice.
What to know before reading further
Free for everyone — safety, evidence and regulatory context are never members-only.
Evidence context
A GHRH-plus-ghrelin 'push-pull' combination. The synergy principle has some human support and the components are characterised, but no human trial has ever tested this combination.
Safety snapshot
There are no controlled human safety data for the combination; safety is inferred from the components, not measured, and growth-hormone-class effects apply.
Regulatory & legality
Unapproved; both WADA-prohibited; grey-market with DAC-versus-no-DAC mislabelling. The components do NOT share one FDA compounding status: ipamorelin acetate is in the ACTIVE Category 2 table under the 503B interim policy (added 29 September 2023), while the CJC-1295 nomination was withdrawn and is not in the active table — and a withdrawal is not approval or clearance and the FDA still publishes the concerns it identified.
Where claims can exceed the evidence
Benefits are inferred from component pharmacology and anecdote; the headline CJC-1295 human data describe the long-acting DAC form, not the no-DAC form used here.
This article does not provide dosing, protocol, administration, sourcing, stack, or self-experimentation guidance, or personalised medical advice. It is educational and non-prescriptive — the evidence profile describes the state of research, not an individual decision.
Overview
CJC-1295 (no DAC) paired with ipamorelin is one of the most popular peptide stacks discussed among self-experimenters, and one of the most misunderstood. The pitch is simple and physiologically reasonable: combine two growth hormone (GH) secretagogues that work through different doors, get a bigger, more natural GH pulse than either alone. The pharmacology behind that idea is genuinely well established.
The problem is the gap between the theory and the evidence for this specific stack. No randomised human trial has ever tested CJC-1295 (no DAC) plus ipamorelin for body composition, performance, recovery, or anything else. Worse, the impressive human data people cite for "CJC-1295" were generated using a different molecule — the long-acting DAC version — not the short-acting "no DAC" form sold and injected in this stack. This article keeps those threads separate and is honest about where the evidence runs out.
Disclaimer. For educational and research purposes only. Not medical advice. We do not sell peptides or compounds.
This detailed research report is available to members
Research Rats is an 18+ educational research platform. Member-only content provides structured evidence interpretation only. It is not medical advice, dosing guidance, protocol guidance, sourcing guidance, cycle design, stack design or treatment advice.
Free safety information remains available where possible.
To continue, create an account or log in and agree to the Terms of Website Use, Privacy Notice, Cookie and Site Technologies Policy, and Medical, Health and Research Disclaimer.
Member access does not provide medical advice, dosing advice, sourcing advice, protocol guidance or treatment recommendations. How Research Rats works
[ Related research ]
The Glow Stack (BPC-157 + TB-500 + GHK-Cu): What the Evidence Actually Says
A clear-eyed look at the Glow Stack: strong on mechanism and cosmetics, thin on human injectable data, and with zero trials of the combination itself.
Klow Stack (BPC-157 + TB-500 + GHK-Cu + KPV): What the Evidence Actually Says
A clear-eyed look at the four-peptide Klow blend: real per-component biology, mostly animal data, and zero human trials on the combination itself.
The Wolverine Stack (BPC-157 + TB-500): What the Evidence Actually Shows
An evidence-first look at the BPC-157 + TB-500 "Wolverine Stack": strong mechanism, mostly rat data, and zero human trials of the combination.