CJC-1295 / Ipamorelin

CJC-1295/Ipamorelin is a vendor name for two peptides combined in one vial: a GHRH analogue sold as “CJC-1295” (almost always actually the different, no-DAC molecule) and ipamorelin, a selective ghrelin-receptor agonist. There is no fixed ratio, no INN, and no approved status. Across examined listings, the split ranges from 1:1 to 1:2, several disclose no split at all, and one certificate of analysis didn’t match the product it was posted against. No human trial of the combination has ever been run.

Research snapshot

Peptide category	Two-component peptide blend (GHRH analogue + ghrelin receptor agonist)
Primary research interest	Growth hormone axis stimulation (marketed; not established for this specific combination)
Highest available evidence	Tier 5 — class-level mechanistic synergy evidence exists, but not for these specific molecules or this route
Human research available	No — zero registered trials of the combination exist
Development status	Not a formulated drug product; a compounding/vendor mixture
Regulatory status	Neither component approved; both named individually in FDA warning letters and on WADA’s prohibited list

Technical identity (composition)

Primary name	CJC-1295/Ipamorelin blend (vendor name)
Composition	“CJC-1295” (almost always the different, no-DAC molecule, mod GRF 1-29) + ipamorelin (selective ghrelin receptor agonist)
Share of vial by mass	No fixed ratio; 1:1 is the dominant convention across listings, but ranges from 1:1 to 1:2, and some vials disclose no split at all
Peptide sequence	Not applicable — a multi-component mixture; see individual CJC-1295 (no DAC) and Ipamorelin pages for each molecule’s sequence
Molecular formula	Not applicable — a multi-component mixture, not a single molecular entity
CAS Registry Number	Not applicable — no CAS number is assigned to the combination itself
Chemical modifications	Not applicable at the combination level; see individual component pages
Developer or originator	Not applicable — a vendor/compounding mixture, not a developed drug product
Development status	Not in formal development; no INN, no approved status

What it is

CJC-1295 / ipamorelin is two synthetic peptides weighed into one container: a GHRH analogue sold as CJC-1295, almost always the version without DAC, which is a different molecule called mod GRF 1-29, and ipamorelin, a selective ghrelin receptor agonist. It has no INN, no CAS number and no approved indication anywhere, and it is not a fixed dose combination in the regulatory sense, which would need a ratio justified by dose ranging data and stability data for the two actives. Several listings borrow the language anyway.

What is actually in the vial

Fourteen distinct listings were found. The dominant convention is one to one by mass, and it is a convention, not a standard: no dose ranging study of the pair exists in any species, so nothing argues for equal weights beyond their being easy to weigh.

Totals found were 6 mg as 3 plus 3, 10 mg as 5 plus 5, 15 mg, 18 mg and 20 mg as 10 plus 10, plus a compounded solution and a nasal spray. Five presentations state a total and nothing else. One points the reader to the certificate of analysis or customer support for the composition.

The sharpest case is a 15 mg vial disclosing no split at all. Fifteen does not divide into one to one in whole milligrams, so it is 7.5 plus 7.5, or 10 plus 5, or 5 plus 10, and the buyer cannot tell which.

Nor is one to one safe to assume: one listing is 12 mg of ipamorelin with 6 mg of CJC-1295 without DAC, one to two. Two content notes belong here too: one listing states a deliberate 104 percent overfill, and one certificate of analysis posted against a 10 plus 10 vial reports 5.12 mg and 5.36 mg.

What one injection delivers

Reconstitution volume is one number applied to the whole cake. It divides both components equally and never changes the ratio, fixed when the vial was filled.

Reconstituted with 3 mL, that 15 mg vial holds 5 mg per mL combined whichever way the split falls. A 10 unit draw, 0.1 mL, gives 250 micrograms of each at 7.5 plus 7.5, or 333 of CJC-1295 and 167 of ipamorelin at 10 plus 5, or those reversed at 5 plus 10. Same label, same water, same ten units: ipamorelin delivered ranges from 167 to 333 mcg, a twofold spread in the raw amount, and the CJC-to-ipamorelin ratio itself swings from 0.5 to 2.0, a fourfold swing in that separate ratio measure.

Two published pages found in this research get that arithmetic wrong in print, both off by exactly a factor of two, both from treating combined vial weight as one substance.

And the point nobody makes: ipamorelin weighs about 712 daltons, mod GRF 1-29 about 3,368, so one to one by mass is roughly 4.7 to 1 by moles in favour of ipamorelin. Receptors count molecules, not milligrams.

What has actually been tested

No human trial of the combination exists, and that is confirmed rather than assumed. ClinicalTrials.gov returns four records for CJC-1295 or ipamorelin across the whole registry, one of CJC-1295 alone, two of ipamorelin alone and one caught on a keyword match. PubMed returns ten for the two terms together, all reviews or doping control method papers, none primary.

Against that, a January 2026 review in The American Journal of Sports Medicine states in its abstract that CJC-1295 combined with ipamorelin improved maximum tetanic tension in murine models of glucocorticoid induced muscle loss.

The only study matching that description is Andersen 2001. The species is rat, not mouse, and the combination there is ipamorelin given with the glucocorticoid, not with CJC-1295, which does not appear in it and could not have, since it did not enter the literature until 2005. Only the abstract was retrievable, so this is what that abstract states against what the cited source contains. It is the most authoritative looking claim in the peer reviewed record that this blend has been tested and works.

What dosage information circulates?

Figures in this section summarize amounts and schedules reported in published research or circulating online. Their inclusion documents what is reported and does not establish that a regimen is verified, safe, effective, or appropriate.

Reported use or research objective	Route reported	Amount reported	Frequency reported	Reported duration	Evidence or source category
GH axis stimulation, starting figure	Subcutaneous	100 mcg of each component	Once daily, usually bedtime	8–16 weeks, then 4–8 off	Community/vendor reported
Titrated figure	Subcutaneous	100–300 mcg of each component	1–3x daily	12–16 weeks, then 4–8 off	Community/vendor reported
Stated as blend mass	Subcutaneous	0.2 mg per injection (total or per-component not specified)	Once daily	Not specified	Community/vendor reported
Nasal presentation	Intranasal spray	~83 mcg of each per actuation	Not specified	Not specified	Community/vendor reported

Not consistently reported in human or animal research: no trial of this specific combination exists. A direct registry search returns records for CJC-1295 alone and ipamorelin alone, but none combining the two. Circulating figures are written in micrograms of each component, while vials are labeled in combined milligrams with an undisclosed or inconsistent split — no source reviewed bridges the two, and the same reconstitution and draw can deliver a twofold-different dose depending on the unstated ratio.

The synergy claim

The mechanism is real at class level. Popovic 1994 gave twelve normal subjects GHRH alone, the ghrelin mimetic GHRP-6 alone, and both. Growth hormone area under the curve was 686, 1,787 and 4,111, so the pair exceeded the arithmetic sum, which is synergy rather than addition.

So the rationale is real. What does not follow is the claim on the vial. Those studies used native GHRH with GHRP-6, hexarelin or ghrelin, never mod GRF 1-29 and never ipamorelin, whose defining selectivity makes it unlike GHRP-6. They used intravenous boluses, not subcutaneous injection of two peptides of very different size, and measured serum growth hormone for hours after one dose.

Which CJC-1295 is in the vial

Most of what is sold as CJC-1295 in a blend is the version without DAC, whose half life has never been measured in humans, unlike the 5.8 to 8.1 days of the DAC form. A 2026 Frontiers in Endocrinology review states plainly that no human half-life figure exists for the no-DAC form, and that any specific number quoted for it should be treated as invented; the most that can honestly be said is that its action is expected to be on the order of minutes to tens of minutes, by inference from its lack of the DAC albumin-binding modification, not from a measurement. A once daily schedule therefore means something different for each form. At least one listing sells the blend built on the DAC form, and one states no DAC status at all.

Potential benefits and research applications

Enhanced growth hormone release via synergy (the marketed premise)

What is being investigated: nothing specific to this exact vial’s contents, no study has tested mod GRF 1-29 with ipamorelin, by any route, in any species. How the effect might occur: by the documented GHRH+ghrelin-mimetic synergy mechanism described above. Evidence: class-level synergy is real (human data, IV bolus, different molecules). Strength for this specific product: none established, the gap between the studied molecules/route and the marketed product is total. Limitation: even setting aside the molecule mismatch, the entire human synergy literature is single-dose acute testing over 90 to 180 minutes; the circulating protocols propose daily injection for months, a duration nobody has tested for either the individual compounds or the combination.

Body composition, sleep, recovery, and anti-aging claims (unsupported)

What is being investigated: nothing for this combination specifically. Evidence: none, lean mass, fat mass, strength, sleep architecture, injury healing, and skin effects have never been measured for this pair, or for either component alone in a controlled human trial using those endpoints.

Regulatory status

Neither component is approved anywhere. Both appeared on FDA 503A or 503B bulk substance lists at various points, though the two compounds have followed different regulatory tracks that should not be collapsed into one history: ipamorelin’s Category 2 listing was under 503B, while its 503A nomination was separately withdrawn and then voted against 12 to 0 at the 29 October 2024 advisory committee meeting. Some 2026 secondary reporting describes twelve peptides, including ipamorelin salt forms, as removed from Category 2 in April 2026; this claim could not be confirmed against a primary FDA document for this entry and should be verified before being treated as settled. CJC-1295-related substances were separately voted against at the 4 December 2024 advisory committee meeting.

Warning letters name both compounds individually, and an August 2026 letter cites a marketed tesamorelin and ipamorelin blend. A CJC-1295 injectable was recalled as Class II in June 2025 for lack of assurance of sterility. Both are named in WADA section S2, prohibited at all times.

A vial labelled 15 mg tells a person how much powder is in the vial. It does not tell them how much of either drug they are injecting, and no amount of water, arithmetic or calculator recovers the missing number.

Frequently asked questions

What is the CJC-1295/Ipamorelin blend?

A vendor mixture of a GHRH analogue (usually the no-DAC form, despite the “CJC-1295” name) and ipamorelin, with no fixed or regulated ratio.

How much of each am I actually injecting?

It depends entirely on the split disclosed, or not disclosed, on your specific vial. The same reconstitution and draw can deliver a twofold-different amount depending on the unstated ratio.

Has the combination been studied?

No. No human or animal study has ever tested this specific pairing.

Is there real synergy evidence for this type of combination?

Yes, at the class level (different molecules, IV route, acute dosing), but not for the specific molecules or route in this product.

Is “CJC-1295” in the blend actually CJC-1295?

Usually not, it’s typically the different, no-DAC molecule with no human evidence.

Is it approved for any use?

No.

Is it banned in sports?

Yes, both components are named in WADA section S2.

What remains unknown?

Whether the combination does anything beyond either component alone, the actual per-injection dose in undisclosed-split vials, and product stability and purity.

Bottom line

This blend’s biggest problem isn’t a lack of research citations, vendors cite plenty, it’s that none of the cited research actually applies to what’s in the vial. The real GHRH+ghrelin-mimetic synergy literature exists and is genuinely interesting, but it used different molecules, a different route, and acute rather than chronic dosing. The one specific animal claim made for this exact combination in a peer-reviewed 2026 journal traces to a study that didn’t contain the compound. And because most vials don’t disclose their actual split, two buyers following identical instructions on identically labeled vials can inject meaningfully different doses of each component without either of them knowing it.