No unapproved compound sold as a fat-loss peptide has a published human trial with a body-composition endpoint. Semaglutide and tesamorelin are peptides too, but they are prescription drugs with pharmacy labels; the compounds sold in vials online are the ones with no fat data. Semaglutide, a GLP-1 drug (it copies glucagon-like peptide-1, a gut hormone that signals fullness), removed 14.9% of body weight over 68 weeks in 1,961 adults, and across 20 randomised trials 35.2% of the weight lost on it was lean tissue rather than fat [[1]][[2]]. Tesamorelin cut visceral fat (the deep fat packed around the organs) by 15.2% in 412 patients with HIV-associated fat redistribution, and it is approved for that indication only [[5]]. CJC-1295 raised growth hormone 2 to 10 fold in healthy adults and nobody in that study was weighed or scanned [[3]], and AOD-9604 was an oral obesity candidate that missed its primary weight-loss endpoint in a 24-week trial and was abandoned [[7]]. The one intervention measured to change how much of the loss is fat rather than muscle is resistance training added to a calorie deficit: 17.5% of weight lost was lean tissue, against 26.2% for diet and lifestyle alone, and that was the only contrast in the analysis that reached statistical significance [[2]].
Peptides commonly discussed for fat loss
Safety: This page reports what published trials measured. It is not a protocol and not medical advice, and it contains no dosing instructions for you. Semaglutide and tirzepatide are approved by the FDA for chronic weight management and carry real risks: nausea and vomiting during escalation, gallbladder disease, a pancreatitis signal, and a boxed warning about thyroid C-cell tumours that rests on rodent carcinogenicity studies. A personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma or MEN2 is a contraindication to these drugs, not merely a caution. Persistent severe upper-abdominal pain on a GLP-1 drug needs same-day medical assessment. CJC-1295, ipamorelin and AOD-9604 are not approved for human use anywhere, have no long-term human safety dataset, and reach buyers through unregulated vendors whose vial contents are only as reliable as their third-party testing; the FDA's own compounding listing records serious adverse events with CJC-1295, including increased heart rate and a systemic vasodilatory reaction. Growth hormone secretagogues (compounds that prod your own pituitary gland into releasing more growth hormone, rather than injecting the hormone itself) raise IGF-1, a growth signal, and the 2018 review of this class calls for long-term work on cancer incidence and mortality that has still not been done, which is why a personal or family history of cancer makes this an oncologist's conversation. The class has also been associated with reduced insulin sensitivity and higher blood glucose. Talk to a clinician who can see your labs before changing anything.
Where to buy
Where to get peptides for fat loss
Compare GLP-1 options — ranked by evidence & price
Semaglutide, tirzepatide & retatrutide — and which fits your genetics.
Semaglutide
Compare providers →CJC-1295
Buy at Swiss Chems →Save 10% at checkout with code tcwisiiu
Some links are affiliate links — we may earn a fee at no extra cost to you. Most peptides aren't FDA-approved — consult a qualified clinician and check your local laws before purchasing.
The compounds sold hardest as fat-loss peptides have never been put on a scale in a published trial. What they have is blood work. The only human numbers for fat itself belong to prescription drugs, and even those were read off the scale first: across 20 randomised trials and 15,782 people, 35.2% of what semaglutide removed was lean tissue rather than fat 2.
Fat loss and weight loss are two different measurements
A bathroom scale adds fat, muscle, bone, organ tissue and water into one number and reports the total. Fat loss is a composition question, and answering it takes a scan: DEXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, the same technology used for bone density) or MRI. A trial had to report one of those two to enter the 2026 meta-analysis of lean-mass change 2.
Lean tissue is everything that is not fat: muscle, organ tissue, bone and water. A 35.2% lean share does not mean a third of the loss was muscle, but muscle is the part of it you would miss.
That distinction decides which compound deserves your attention. Semaglutide's 14.9% is a weight number 1. Tesamorelin's 15.2% is a fat number, read off CT scans of the abdomen 5. CJC-1295's 2 to 10 fold rise is a hormone number from a blood draw 3. Those are three different measurements, sold under one heading.
If total weight on the scale is the number you care about, the trial ladder for the GLP-1 drugs (semaglutide, tirzepatide, retatrutide, cagrilintide) lives on our peptides for weight loss page, which owns that comparison. This page stays on the ratio between fat and lean, which is the question behind recomposition.
Which peptides are best for fat loss? Sorted by what got measured
Every row below is a reported research result in the population that was studied, and mean results hide wide individual spread. The final row is not a peptide at all, and it belongs in the table because it is the only line with a measured effect on the fat-to-lean ratio.
| Compound | Best human evidence | Who was studied | What was measured | Reported result | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semaglutide | STEP 1, 68 weeks 1 | 1,961 adults with overweight or obesity | Total body weight | -14.9% vs -2.4% on placebo; 35.2% of the loss was lean tissue, which is 6.2 kg of lean tissue in absolute terms 2 | Approved by the FDA for chronic weight management |
| Tirzepatide | SURMOUNT trials, covered on our weight loss page | Adults with obesity | Total body weight, plus DEXA composition in pooled trials | 25.4% of the loss was lean tissue, 4.5 kg in absolute terms 2 | Approved by the FDA for chronic weight management |
| Tesamorelin | Falutz et al., 26 weeks 5 | 412 patients with HIV-associated fat redistribution, 86% of them men | Visceral fat on CT | -15.2% vs +5.0% on placebo, with IGF-1 up 81% | Approved only for HIV-associated lipodystrophy; prescription only |
| CJC-1295 | Teichman et al., 28 and 49 days 3 | Healthy adults aged 21 to 61 | Plasma growth hormone and IGF-1 | GH up 2 to 10 fold, IGF-1 up 1.5 to 3 fold. No weight, fat or lean mass recorded | Not approved. Its compounding nomination was withdrawn by the nominator rather than cleared 6 |
| Ipamorelin | None with any body-composition endpoint | Not studied for fat loss | Nothing relevant to fat | No published human trial reports body fat on ipamorelin | Not approved. Ipamorelin acetate is in FDA Category 2 under the 503B policy, added 29 September 2023, so outsourcing facilities may not compound it 6 |
| AOD-9604 | Oral 24-week obesity trial, 534 enrolled and 502 randomised 7 | Adults with obesity | Total body weight | No arm separated from placebo. Primary endpoint missed, development stopped, and no trial paper was ever published 7 | Not approved. Its compounding nomination was withdrawn by the nominator rather than cleared 6 |
| Resistance training plus adequate protein (not a peptide) | Meta-analysis of 20 randomised trials 2 | 15,782 participants pooled | Lean share of total weight lost | 17.5% lean share and 1.8 kg of lean tissue, against 26.2% and 2.4 kg for diet and lifestyle alone | Not a drug |
Read that order as evidence tiers rather than a shopping list. The top is two prescription drugs whose fat effect is inferred from weight plus separate composition scans. The middle is one approved drug whose fat result came from a population defined by HIV treatment. The bottom is three compounds whose fat-loss reputation rests on hormone measurements, animal work, or a trial that failed.
The one lever that moves the fat-to-lean split
Same calorie deficit, one difference: whether you lifted
Lean mass loss during significant weight reduction is substantial, and the proportion of weight lost as lean mass is broadly comparable between incretin-based pharmacotherapy and lifestyle interventions. Muscle mass can be significantly preserved by integrating resistance training, adequate protein intake, and body composition monitoring into weight-loss treatment programs.
The proportions barely move with the compound. Semaglutide's 35.2% (95% CI 31.5 to 38.9) is the highest lean share in the analysis and tirzepatide's 25.4% (22.8 to 28.0) the lowest, but the incretin drugs as a class did not differ from lifestyle change (29.8% vs 26.2%, p = 0.42), and the confidence intervals for tirzepatide and lifestyle alone overlap almost completely. The authors also grade their own estimates unevenly: high certainty for tirzepatide and for resistance training, moderate for semaglutide and for lifestyle alone 2. So the choice of compound is a weak lever on the ratio, and the arm that pulled away from every other was the one that lifted weights.
Proportions hide the size of the loss, though, and that is where the drugs stop looking equivalent. In absolute terms semaglutide removed 6.2 kg of lean tissue (95% CI 7.1 to 5.3), tirzepatide 4.5 kg, liraglutide 2.9 kg, lifestyle alone 2.4 kg (2.9 to 1.9) and lifestyle plus resistance training 1.8 kg 2. Semaglutide takes roughly two and a half times as much lean tissue off as dieting does. Part of that is simply because it removes the most weight: across the trials, the more total weight an arm lost, the larger the lean share became (beta 0.8, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.3, p = 0.002), which is why 35.2% is not a fixed property of the drug. The authors' reading is that muscle protection matters more on the drugs, not less.
The trials that held on to lean mass paired resistance training two to three times a week with a higher protein intake, and a separate meta-analysis of energy-restricted diets found that higher-protein arms preserved more fat-free mass than standard-protein arms at the same deficit 9. The intake range this literature keeps landing on is roughly 1.2 to 1.6 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is about 100 to 130 g for an 80 kg adult, rather than a figure any single trial fixed. If you have kidney disease, that range is a conversation with your clinician before it is a target.
This is the number behind the deflated look people call Ozempic face, and it is also the reason a scale is a poor progress tracker on any fat-loss protocol. Waist circumference and a repeat DEXA against a baseline scan measure the thing you are paying for.
CJC-1295 and ipamorelin: what the only human trial measured
CJC-1295 is a synthetic version of growth-hormone-releasing hormone, the signal that tells the pituitary gland to release growth hormone. The long-acting version binds to albumin, a blood protein, so it lasts days instead of minutes 3. Ipamorelin acts on the ghrelin receptor, a second switch on the same pituitary cells. Pairing them raises growth hormone pulses, and raising growth hormone pulses is the entire documented effect.
Subcutaneous administration of CJC-1295 resulted in sustained, dose-dependent increases in GH and IGF-I levels in healthy adults and was safe and relatively well tolerated, particularly at doses of 30 or 60 microg/kg.Teichman SL et al., Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2006, the only published human trial of CJC-1295
That tolerability statement covers 28 and 49 days of dosing in a few dozen healthy adults under supervision, and it is the ceiling of the human record for CJC-1295 3. No dataset exists beyond that horizon, in any population. Every fat-loss percentage attached to this compound online was assembled somewhere other than a trial.
What CJC-1295 has been shown to do, step by step, and where the chain stops
No published trial has tested that pairing against anything, on any endpoint, in any population. The milligram figures that circulate for it come from community practice.
Where the visceral-fat rationale comes from
The claim that a growth hormone secretagogue strips deep abdominal fat traces to tesamorelin. In 412 patients with HIV-associated fat redistribution, 86% of them men, 2 mg daily by subcutaneous injection for 26 weeks cut visceral fat 15.2%, against a 5.0% rise on placebo, and IGF-1 rose 81% 5. Tesamorelin is a different molecule, given daily at a fixed dose, in patients whose fat redistribution was caused by antiretroviral treatment. It is approved for that indication and no other.
Moving from that result to a healthy 40-year-old injecting CJC-1295 is an assumption, and it is the assumption holding up most secretagogue fat-loss protocols. The same 26 weeks that cut visceral fat pushed IGF-1 up 81%, the growth signal people with a cancer history are told to avoid.
The review that gets misquoted
Vendor pages routinely cite Sigalos and Pastuszak's 2018 review of growth hormone secretagogues for a fat-loss percentage in healthy trained adults. The review contains no such figure. What it says is narrower and less flattering.
To date, few long-term, rigorously controlled studies have examined the efficacy and safety of GHSs, although GHSs might improve growth velocity in children, stimulate appetite, improve lean mass in wasting states and in obese individuals, decrease bone turnover, increase fat-free mass, and improve sleep.Sigalos JT and Pastuszak AW, Sexual Medicine Reviews, 2018
The phrase in that sentence that belongs on a fat-loss page is stimulate appetite. The same review names reduced insulin sensitivity and higher blood glucose as the recurring safety signal for the class, and calls for long-term work on cancer incidence and mortality that has still not been done 4. One scope note, since this page is about borrowed evidence: that review covers growth-hormone-releasing peptides and the oral drug ibutamoren, not CJC-1295 itself, which is a GHRH analogue.
AOD-9604 and the trial you cannot read
AOD-9604 is a 16-amino-acid fragment of human growth hormone (residues 176 to 191), designed to trigger fat breakdown without growth hormone's effects on blood sugar or IGF-1. Its sponsor developed it as an oral anti-obesity drug and ran it in two human programmes: a 12-week study at 1 mg a day by mouth in adults with obesity, and a 24-week trial that enrolled 534 people and randomised 502, in which no arm separated from placebo on weight. That trial missed its primary endpoint (the single result a trial commits to in advance, before it sees the data) and development stopped. No primary trial paper was ever published, so the results reach you through the sponsor's own announcements rather than a journal 7. The roughly 2.6 kg against 0.8 kg on placebo that circulates online belongs to the shorter programme and has the same second-hand provenance, which is the weakest form of reporting a trial can have.
AOD-9604 is the only compound on this page that was taken to a proper obesity endpoint, and the answer was no. Nineteen years later it is still sold as a fat-loss peptide, at doses that appear in no published trial and, more to the point, by a route that appears in none either. Every human study of this compound gave it by mouth; the vials sold online are injected. Its compounding nomination was withdrawn rather than cleared 6.
What are the best peptides to combine for fat loss?
No combination sold for fat loss has been tested as a combination on a fat endpoint, including CJC-1295 with ipamorelin, a secretagogue added on top of a GLP-1 drug, and AOD-9604 added to either. The stacks in circulation are assembled from single-compound mechanism papers and community reports, and MOTS-c gets pulled in from the mitochondrial literature on mouse metabolic data (our mitochondrial health page covers what has and has not been tested in humans there).
Two ways people build a fat-loss protocol, and what sits under each
Both columns rest on the same floor. Resistance training and adequate protein are what the meta-analysis singled out as preserving muscle during weight loss 2, and that finding does not depend on which column you are standing in.
How people use peptides for fat loss, and what the studies measured
These are the protocols published trials ran, reported as research. They are not instructions, and the doses below were chosen for a specific trial population under supervision.
| Compound | Route | Dose used in the study | Schedule | How long | Who |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semaglutide | Subcutaneous injection | Escalated to 2.4 mg | Once weekly, after a 16-week escalation | 68 weeks | 1,961 adults with overweight or obesity 1 |
| Tesamorelin | Subcutaneous injection | 2 mg | Once daily | 26 weeks | 412 patients with HIV-associated fat redistribution 5 |
| CJC-1295, long-acting form | Subcutaneous injection | 30 to 60 mcg per kg body weight | Single ascending doses, then two or three weekly or biweekly doses | 28 and 49 days | Healthy adults aged 21 to 61 3 |
| AOD-9604 | Oral (tablets) in every human trial 7 | 1 mg per day in the 12-week study; oral dosing in the 24-week trial, never published in full | Once daily | 12 weeks, and 24 weeks in the trial that failed | Adults with obesity; 534 enrolled and 502 randomised in the 24-week trial 7 |
| Resistance training plus protein | Not applicable | Supervised training programmes alongside a calorie deficit | Per trial protocol | Varied by trial | 15,782 participants pooled across 20 trials 2 |
Everything else in circulation, meaning the milligram figures quoted for CJC-1295, the microgram figures for ipamorelin and the injected figure for AOD-9604 on vendor pages and forums, comes from community practice. Those numbers have no trial behind them, no comparison group and no measured outcome, and this page is neither reporting them as a regimen nor recommending them.
Timelines are worth calibrating too. STEP 1 read its primary result at 68 weeks and the tesamorelin trial at 26 weeks 15. Composition change that a scan can detect took months in every trial that measured it, which makes any weekly fat-loss percentage attributed to a secretagogue a number nobody collected. For how people structure cycles and why the usual 12 weeks on, 4 weeks off convention is a convention rather than a finding, see our peptide cycling guide.
What a vial costs, how it is stored, and what the label does not tell you
At the research-chemical vendor whose catalogue we track, as of August 2026, a vial of CJC-1295 lists around $43 and ipamorelin around $18. Vendors in this market sell these compounds labelled for laboratory research use only, not for human consumption. They are not approved human medicines, no vendor may lawfully sell them for personal use, and importing or holding them may breach federal or state law where you live. A vial price is not a course price either, and it buys a lyophilised (freeze-dried) powder whose identity and purity depend entirely on the vendor's third-party testing. Note also that most research suppliers stock CJC-1295 without DAC, sold as modified GRF 1-29, which is a different molecule from the long-acting version every trial figure on this page refers to, with a half-life of minutes rather than days 7. Tesamorelin is prescription-only and belongs to a pharmacy against a prescription, never to a research supplier.
Prescription semaglutide and tirzepatide cost far more per month and arrive from a pharmacy with a verified label, which is the trade being made. Put plainly: about $60 buys a CJC-1295 and ipamorelin vial pair that will raise a hormone level you will never measure, toward a fat result nobody has ever recorded.
Storage is simple and unforgiving. Sealed lyophilised powder tolerates room temperature in transit for a few days and belongs in a refrigerator after that. Once reconstituted with bacteriostatic water, a vial lives at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius and is used within weeks rather than months, kept away from light and never frozen after mixing. Our guide to reconstituting peptides covers the mechanics, and injection hygiene covers the part that causes most avoidable harm.
Disclosure: the vendor links on this page, including our vendor comparison, are affiliate links, and PeptidesDNA may earn a commission from purchases made through them at no extra cost to you. Commission does not affect how vendors are ranked; the ranking is based on third-party testing transparency, which is the variable most worth comparing when a compound has no approved manufacturer.
Where to get it
CJC-1295
The GH amplifier
$42.95at Swiss Chems
Save 10% at checkout with code tcwisiiu
Ipamorelin
The selective GH releaser
$17.56at Swiss Chems
Save 10% at checkout with code tcwisiiu
What happens when you stop
The reason anyone adds a secretagogue to a fat-loss protocol is muscle, and the strongest test of that logic used growth hormone itself. Across 18 randomised trials in 508 healthy older adults, growth hormone added 2.13 kg of lean mass and removed 2.08 kg of fat, with no measurable gain in strength or function; our muscle growth page has the full evidence, including the antibody drug that has separated fat loss from lean loss in humans. A compound that nudges growth hormone upward is being asked to beat that, in people who were not training. If you are over 50, peptides after 50 covers what the age-related decline in growth hormone does and does not justify.
As for stopping, the STEP 1 extension found that one year after semaglutide and the lifestyle programme were withdrawn, participants had regained two thirds of their prior weight loss, with cardiometabolic markers moving back alongside it 8. Our weight loss page covers that curve and what it did to clinical practice. The composition point it leaves open belongs here: the extension reported weight, not tissue. Nobody scanned those participants, so what a regain does to your body composition has never been measured.
For CJC-1295 and ipamorelin the gap is wider. Nothing about body composition was measured during use, so nothing can be measured after stopping, and any retention percentage quoted for a post-cycle period was invented rather than observed.
Two variants with a real pathway story, and what neither can promise you
No trial of any fat-loss peptide has published results by genotype. That is the ceiling on this section, and everything under it is pathway context rather than a prediction of response.
- ADRB3 rs4994 (Trp64Arg) sits in the beta-3 adrenergic receptor, the pathway AOD-9604 is marketed on. A meta-analysis of 44,833 people associated the Arg64 variant with higher body mass index, with the association clearest in East Asian populations 10. Whether it changes response to any peptide is unstudied, and the fat-breakdown mechanism it is supposed to explain has never been demonstrated in people.
- The growth hormone receptor exon-3 deletion has the best claim to relevance for this class. Consumer arrays infer it from a nearby tag marker rather than reading it directly, and no secretagogue trial has stratified its results by it.
What a DNA report can honestly contribute is context: which metabolism and growth-hormone-axis markers your file carries, what population associations attach to them, and where the published evidence for each compound sits. Choosing a compound is a clinical decision, and our DNA decision framework walks through how to weigh a genetic association against an evidence tier without confusing the two.
Curious how your own metabolism and growth-hormone-axis markers read, and where the published evidence sits for each of the compounds people pair with them? Upload the raw DNA data you already have from 23andMe, AncestryDNA or MyHeritage and get all 39 peptides ranked by evidence tier alongside your marker context. It is educational context, not a prediction of how you will respond and not a treatment recommendation.
Get your DNA report- The recomposition stack is a hormone result wearing a body-composition costume
CJC-1295 with ipamorelin is sold on the promise of losing fat while keeping muscle, and the only published human trial behind CJC-1295 measured plasma growth hormone and IGF-1 over 28 and 49 days. Nobody in that trial was weighed or scanned, so no fat number exists to quote. The visceral-fat rationale is borrowed from tesamorelin, a different drug tested in patients whose fat redistribution was caused by HIV treatment. The one lever with a measured effect on the fat-to-lean ratio is resistance training plus adequate protein, and it works whichever compound is on board.
- A failed trial tells you more than a missing one
AOD-9604 was taken to a real obesity endpoint in a 24-week trial that enrolled 534 people and randomised 502, missed it, and was abandoned. That is more than any growth hormone secretagogue (a compound that prompts the pituitary to release the body's own growth hormone) sold for fat loss has ever been put through. Both compounds are still sold for fat loss, and only one of them has an answer attached.
Frequently asked questions
Which peptides are best for fat loss?
Ranked by what has been measured in humans: semaglutide and tirzepatide have randomised weight-loss trials plus pooled body-composition data, and roughly a quarter to a third of the weight they remove is lean tissue rather than fat [[2]]. Tesamorelin has a genuine visceral-fat result, in 412 patients with HIV-associated fat redistribution, and is approved for that indication only [[5]]. CJC-1295 has plasma growth hormone and IGF-1 data over 28 and 49 days with no fat endpoint [[3]], ipamorelin has no body-composition data at all, and AOD-9604 was an oral candidate that missed its primary weight-loss endpoint in a 24-week trial of 534 enrolled adults and was abandoned [[7]]. None of the last three is approved for human use.
What are the best peptides to combine for fat loss?
No combination sold for fat loss has ever been tested as a combination on a fat endpoint. The CJC-1295 with ipamorelin pairing has no published trial of any kind, adding a secretagogue to semaglutide or tirzepatide has never been trialled for body composition, and AOD-9604 has no combination data either. The pairing with measured evidence for protecting muscle during weight loss is resistance training with adequate protein, which cut the lean share of weight lost from 26.2% to 17.5% in a meta-analysis of 20 randomised trials, the only contrast in that analysis that reached significance [[2]]. Combining unapproved injectables also multiplies unknown risks, which is a conversation for a clinician who can order labs.
Can you lose fat with peptides without training?
You can lose weight without training, and the composition of that loss is the problem. In a meta-analysis of 20 randomised trials covering 15,782 people, roughly a quarter to a third of the weight lost went as lean tissue across the drug and diet-only arms, with no significant difference between the incretin drugs as a class and lifestyle alone (29.8% vs 26.2%, p = 0.42). Only the arms that added resistance training brought the figure down, to 17.5%, and that was the one contrast that reached significance [[2]]. Losing lean tissue lowers resting energy expenditure, which works against holding the result. No peptide on this page has been shown to change that ratio, because none has been tested against a body-composition endpoint outside the GLP-1 drugs and tesamorelin.
What peptides work for muscle growth and fat loss at the same time?
No peptide has been shown to do both at once in a human trial. The closest published test of the idea is growth hormone itself: across 18 randomised trials in 508 healthy older adults it added lean mass and removed fat with no measurable gain in strength or function, and it raised rates of swelling, carpal tunnel syndrome and joint pain. Our [peptides for muscle growth](/peptides-for/muscle-growth) page covers that evidence in full. The growth hormone secretagogues sold for recomposition (CJC-1295, ipamorelin, sermorelin) have never been measured on muscle or fat in any published trial [[3]].
Sources10
- Wilding JPH et al. Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity (STEP 1). New England Journal of Medicine 2021;384:989-1002. n=1,961, 68 weeks.
- Eisa N, Barood O. Lean Mass Changes With Incretin Therapy Versus Lifestyle Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism 2026;28:4818-4827. 20 RCTs, 15,782 participants.
- Teichman SL et al. Prolonged stimulation of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor I secretion by CJC-1295, a long-acting analog of GH-releasing hormone, in healthy adults. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2006;91:799-805.
- Sigalos JT, Pastuszak AW. The Safety and Efficacy of Growth Hormone Secretagogues. Sexual Medicine Reviews 2018;6:45-53.
- Falutz J et al. Metabolic Effects of a Growth Hormone-Releasing Factor in Patients with HIV (tesamorelin). New England Journal of Medicine 2007;357:2359-2370. n=412, 26 weeks.
- FDA. Certain Bulk Drug Substances for Use in Compounding that May Present Significant Safety Risks (Category 2 under the section 503A and 503B interim policies, with the companion list of nominations withdrawn by their nominators). Ipamorelin acetate listed under 503B from 29 September 2023; AOD-9604 and CJC-1295 listed as nominated but withdrawn.
- Dominikowski A et al. The emerging landscape of performance-enhancing peptides modulating the GH-IGF1 axis: bridging the gap between clinical evidence and patient self-administration. Frontiers in Endocrinology 2026;17:1822475. Covers CJC-1295 with and without DAC, ipamorelin, tesamorelin and the oral AOD-9604 programme (24 weeks, 534 enrolled, 502 randomised, primary endpoint missed).
- Wilding JPH et al. Weight regain and cardiometabolic effects after withdrawal of semaglutide: the STEP 1 trial extension. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism 2022;24:1553-1564.
- Wycherley TP et al. Effects of energy-restricted high-protein, low-fat compared with standard-protein, low-fat diets: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2012;96:1281-1298.
- Kurokawa N et al. The ADRB3 Trp64Arg variant and BMI: a meta-analysis of 44,833 individuals. International Journal of Obesity 2008;32:1240-1249.
This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not medical advice and does not diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Consult a qualified healthcare professional before starting any peptide protocol. Individual results vary. Some outbound links are affiliate links, at no extra cost to you.
This page is educational and is not medical advice. Peptides are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease, and most are not FDA-approved. Talk to a qualified healthcare provider before starting anything. Availability and legal status of peptides vary by jurisdiction.
← All condition guides