Why are CJC-1295 and ipamorelin combined in one vial?

Because they act on two different receptors that feed the same axis. CJC-1295 is an analogue of growth hormone releasing hormone and works at the GHRH receptor. Ipamorelin is a selective growth hormone secretagogue and works at the ghrelin receptor, GHS-R1a. Raun and colleagues characterised that selectivity in 1998, reporting growth hormone release without the prolactin and cortisol response other secretagogues of the era produced. The pairing is an attempt to push both inputs at once rather than one harder.

Does pairing them mean each one gets a smaller dose?

No, and this is one of the few places where the engine has an explicit rule. A GHRH analogue paired with a growth hormone secretagogue counts as one slot in a protocol rather than two, and both run at full dose. Neither is reduced for the presence of the other. What the pairing constrains is the draw, not the dose: a fixed-ratio vial has one draw volume, so the vial’s ratio decides how close each component lands to its own target.

Is the CJC-1295 in a blend vial the version with DAC?

Usually not, and it changes the schedule enough to be worth checking on the label in front of you. The drug affinity complex is a linker that binds the peptide to serum albumin and stretches its half-life into days, which is what the published human pharmacokinetic work studied. Blend vials sold alongside ipamorelin normally carry the form without that linker, whose action is short. That is why this pairing is dosed daily rather than weekly. The engine dose table entry this page reads is the form without the complex, and the frequency shown in the tables reflects it.

Why does a blend need a different calculator than a single peptide?

Because you cannot dose the components independently. The vial has one ratio, so one draw volume sets both amounts at once. Where the ratio in the vial does not match the ratio of the two compounds’ own targets, one of them lands off target and a single-peptide calculator has no way to show it. The per-component readout on this page names which component the draw was limited by and how far the other one sits from its own figure.

How is the draw volume decided?

It is the largest volume at which neither component passes its own upper bound in the engine dose table. The page names which component set the limit and why. That is deliberately conservative: a blend ratio can push one compound high while the other is still short, and the ceiling is the figure the engine will not cross.

Does body weight change either dose?

No, for both halves of this pair. The engine catalog flags neither compound weight sensitive, and the dose calculator applies no generic weight scaling, so the tool leaves both targets alone. Some peptides do carry a per-kilogram factor and the tool applies it for those. Scaling everything by mass would be an invention.

What does the experience level input actually change?

It selects a different row in the engine dose table for each component, changing the opening dose, the standard dose, the upper dose, the ceiling and the frequency together. It is the same experience banding the protocol engine uses when it sets a dose envelope, not a cosmetic filter. The frequency in particular widens with experience for both compounds here, which the component table shows verbatim.

How much bacteriostatic water should I add?

There is no single right answer, and with a microgram-dosed pair out of a milligram vial the choice matters. A concentrated mix can put a draw at only a few units, where a small misread is a large error. More water spreads the same draw across more units. Change the water volume in the calculator and every table updates, so you can pick the volume that puts your draw in a readable part of the syringe.

How long is a cycle, and how many vials does it take?

The cycle length on the supplies table is read from the engine catalog’s cycling data for the components, taking the shortest on-period, because a shared vial cannot be cycled per component. Multiply that by the administrations per week from the dose table and the tool returns vials, syringes and bottles of bacteriostatic water.

How well studied is this pair?

The two halves are studied very differently, and the honest answer names the gap. CJC-1295 has published human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic work, including a dose-escalation study in healthy adults and a study showing that pulsatile growth hormone secretion persists under continuous stimulation, but that work used the long-acting form. Ipamorelin has human pharmacokinetic data and reached a randomised controlled trial, in postoperative gut motility rather than in body composition. Neither compound is approved by the FDA, and the pairing itself has not been trialled as a combination. The references at the foot of this page are the primary literature for each half, listed so you can see what does and does not exist.

Is this calculator free?

Yes. No account, no paywall, no usage limit. The protocol engine behind it is a separate product, but the calculator is open.

Does Klarovel sell this blend?

No. Klarovel is the protocol layer: a questionnaire, a deterministic rules engine and a generated protocol. Any product is fulfilled by partner suppliers, not by Klarovel. This page exists because the arithmetic of a fixed-ratio vial is genuinely hard to do in your head, not to move a product.

Is this medical advice?

No. It is arithmetic over published dose data, presented as a reference. It is not a prescription and not a recommendation to use any compound. Discuss peptide use with a qualified clinician.

CJC-1295 and ipamorelin calculator

Two compounds, two receptors, one vial and one draw volume. This calculator splits a co-mixed CJC-1295 and ipamorelin vial into what each component actually delivers at every draw, then checks that draw against each one’s own upper bound.

Set your vial composition, water volume, experience level and body weight. The per-component breakdown, the three-phase titration table and the supplies plan all recompute. Every dose figure is read from the Klarovel engine’s dose table, never typed into the page.

Vial composition

Vial contents, not doses. Confirm against the label on the vial in front of you before you mix.

Bacteriostatic water added

Experience with injectable peptides

Body weight

Age 65 or over

Standard phase, single shared draw

6.0 units

0.06 ml on a 100-unit insulin syringe

CJC-1295 (without DAC)

on target

100 mcg

target 100 mcg, ceiling 300 mcg

Ipamorelin

under target

100 mcg

target 200 mcg, ceiling 300 mcg

The draw is set by CJC-1295 (without DAC), which reaches its target first. Every other component is read off the same draw because a blend has one ratio.

Per-component breakdown at every draw volume

What each draw volume actually delivers per component at 3 ml of bacteriostatic water and the vial composition selected above. These are mathematical breakdowns of the vial, not dose recommendations. The targets and ceilings are in the titration table below.

Per-component amount delivered at each insulin syringe draw volume
Draw	Volume	CJC-1295 (without DAC)	Ipamorelin
2 units	0.02 ml	33.3 mcg	33.3 mcg
4 units	0.04 ml	66.7 mcg	66.7 mcg
5 units	0.05 ml	83.3 mcg	83.3 mcg
6 units	0.06 ml	100 mcg	100 mcg
8 units	0.08 ml	133.3 mcg	133.3 mcg
10 units	0.1 ml	166.7 mcg	166.7 mcg
12 units	0.12 ml	200 mcg	200 mcg
15 units	0.15 ml	250 mcg	250 mcg
20 units	0.2 ml	333.3 mcg	333.3 mcg
25 units	0.25 ml	416.7 mcg	416.7 mcg
30 units	0.3 ml	500 mcg	500 mcg
40 units	0.4 ml	666.7 mcg	666.7 mcg
50 units	0.5 ml	833.3 mcg	833.3 mcg

Arithmetic over the vial composition and your water volume. The display unit per component is the unit that component's row declares in the engine dose table.

Phase by phase titration

Three phases, in the order the engine escalates a dose: opening, standard, then upper. Every figure below is the beginner row of the engine dose table for that component, after the modifiers your inputs trigger. Change experience level, weight or age above and the whole table recomputes.

Phase 1, opening dose

draw 6.0 units

Phase 1, opening dose per component
Component	Delivered	Target	Draw for target	Ceiling
CJC-1295 (without DAC)	100 mcg	100 mcg	6.0 units	300 mcg
Ipamorelin	100 mcg	150 mcg	9.0 units	300 mcg

The components' own targets are reached 1.5x apart in draw volume, so one draw cannot satisfy them all. Ipamorelin lands under target at this draw. Reaching that target would mean drawing further and pushing another component past its ceiling, which is why the volume stops here.

Phase 2, standard dose

draw 6.0 units

Phase 2, standard dose per component
Component	Delivered	Target	Draw for target	Ceiling
CJC-1295 (without DAC)	100 mcg	100 mcg	6.0 units	300 mcg
Ipamorelin	100 mcg	200 mcg	12.0 units	300 mcg

The components' own targets are reached 2x apart in draw volume, so one draw cannot satisfy them all. Ipamorelin lands under target at this draw. Reaching that target would mean drawing further and pushing another component past its ceiling, which is why the volume stops here.

Phase 3, upper dose

draw 12.0 units

Phase 3, upper dose per component
Component	Delivered	Target	Draw for target	Ceiling
CJC-1295 (without DAC)	200 mcg	200 mcg	12.0 units	300 mcg
Ipamorelin	200 mcg	250 mcg	15.0 units	300 mcg

Targets, upper bounds and ceilings read from dose_protocols, the engine's dose table. Weight scaling applies only where PEPTIDE_CATALOG flags a component weight sensitive. The 0.75x age reduction is the engine's own contraindication rule for age 65 and over.

What your body weight does, and does not, change

Not weight sensitive: CJC-1295 (without DAC), Ipamorelin. The catalog does not flag these components weight sensitive and the dose calculator applies no weight scaling of its own, so changing the weight field does not move their target. Scaling every compound by body mass would be an invention, so the tool does not do it.

Supplies for one cycle

One on-cycle runs 12 weeks, followed by 4 weeks off.

Administrations per week

Options come from the components' own frequency strings: CJC-1295 (without DAC) is once to twice daily, Ipamorelin is once daily or split into 2 doses. Where those disagree there is no single correct value, so the default is the most conservative one the data supports.

Bacteriostatic water bottle size

Supplies required for one on-cycle
Cycle length	12 weeks
Administrations per week	7
Total administrations	84
Vials	2
Insulin syringes	84 (30-unit holds the draw)
Bacteriostatic water	6 ml, 1 bottle of 10 ml

Cycle length from PEPTIDE_CATALOG cycling data. Administrations per week derived from the frequency string on each component's dose row. Vial and syringe counts are arithmetic over your draw volume and water volume.

Component reference

Route, timing, frequency and cycling per component, read from the engine catalog.

Per-component administration and cycling reference
Component	Route	Timing	Frequency	Cycle	Loading phase
CJC-1295 (without DAC)	subcutaneous	Bedtime	once to twice daily	12 on / 4 off	None
Ipamorelin	subcutaneous	Bedtime	once daily or split into 2 doses	12 on / 4 off	None

Route, timing and cycling from PEPTIDE_CATALOG. Frequency from the beginner row of dose_protocols.

What a fixed blend cannot do, stated plainly

A blend is one ratio in one vial. There is exactly one draw volume, and it has to serve every component at once. When the ratio does not match the ratio of the components' own targets, something has to give: either a component lands under its target, or another is pushed toward its ceiling. The table above says which, for your inputs, rather than printing a single volume and leaving it unresolved.

Contraindications are the second limit. A protocol can drop one compound and keep the rest. A blend cannot, because the compounds share a vial. If a health condition rules out one component, it rules out the vial.

A Klarovel protocol is built from your health data. Blood work is optional and sharpens the result, but it never gates it. The engine resolves contraindications, sets the dose envelope by experience level, removes incompatible pairs and sets the cycling schedule. That is the difference between a calculator and a protocol.

Save your reconstitution. Get the protocol it belongs in.

Free founding-member access while spots last. We'll send your reconstitution + a link to claim your slot.

Questions

Why are CJC-1295 and ipamorelin combined in one vial?: Because they act on two different receptors that feed the same axis. CJC-1295 is an analogue of growth hormone releasing hormone and works at the GHRH receptor. Ipamorelin is a selective growth hormone secretagogue and works at the ghrelin receptor, GHS-R1a. Raun and colleagues characterised that selectivity in 1998, reporting growth hormone release without the prolactin and cortisol response other secretagogues of the era produced. The pairing is an attempt to push both inputs at once rather than one harder.
Does pairing them mean each one gets a smaller dose?: No, and this is one of the few places where the engine has an explicit rule. A GHRH analogue paired with a growth hormone secretagogue counts as one slot in a protocol rather than two, and both run at full dose. Neither is reduced for the presence of the other. What the pairing constrains is the draw, not the dose: a fixed-ratio vial has one draw volume, so the vial’s ratio decides how close each component lands to its own target.
Is the CJC-1295 in a blend vial the version with DAC?: Usually not, and it changes the schedule enough to be worth checking on the label in front of you. The drug affinity complex is a linker that binds the peptide to serum albumin and stretches its half-life into days, which is what the published human pharmacokinetic work studied. Blend vials sold alongside ipamorelin normally carry the form without that linker, whose action is short. That is why this pairing is dosed daily rather than weekly. The engine dose table entry this page reads is the form without the complex, and the frequency shown in the tables reflects it.
Why does a blend need a different calculator than a single peptide?: Because you cannot dose the components independently. The vial has one ratio, so one draw volume sets both amounts at once. Where the ratio in the vial does not match the ratio of the two compounds’ own targets, one of them lands off target and a single-peptide calculator has no way to show it. The per-component readout on this page names which component the draw was limited by and how far the other one sits from its own figure.
How is the draw volume decided?: It is the largest volume at which neither component passes its own upper bound in the engine dose table. The page names which component set the limit and why. That is deliberately conservative: a blend ratio can push one compound high while the other is still short, and the ceiling is the figure the engine will not cross.
Does body weight change either dose?: No, for both halves of this pair. The engine catalog flags neither compound weight sensitive, and the dose calculator applies no generic weight scaling, so the tool leaves both targets alone. Some peptides do carry a per-kilogram factor and the tool applies it for those. Scaling everything by mass would be an invention.
What does the experience level input actually change?: It selects a different row in the engine dose table for each component, changing the opening dose, the standard dose, the upper dose, the ceiling and the frequency together. It is the same experience banding the protocol engine uses when it sets a dose envelope, not a cosmetic filter. The frequency in particular widens with experience for both compounds here, which the component table shows verbatim.
How much bacteriostatic water should I add?: There is no single right answer, and with a microgram-dosed pair out of a milligram vial the choice matters. A concentrated mix can put a draw at only a few units, where a small misread is a large error. More water spreads the same draw across more units. Change the water volume in the calculator and every table updates, so you can pick the volume that puts your draw in a readable part of the syringe.
How long is a cycle, and how many vials does it take?: The cycle length on the supplies table is read from the engine catalog’s cycling data for the components, taking the shortest on-period, because a shared vial cannot be cycled per component. Multiply that by the administrations per week from the dose table and the tool returns vials, syringes and bottles of bacteriostatic water.
How well studied is this pair?: The two halves are studied very differently, and the honest answer names the gap. CJC-1295 has published human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic work, including a dose-escalation study in healthy adults and a study showing that pulsatile growth hormone secretion persists under continuous stimulation, but that work used the long-acting form. Ipamorelin has human pharmacokinetic data and reached a randomised controlled trial, in postoperative gut motility rather than in body composition. Neither compound is approved by the FDA, and the pairing itself has not been trialled as a combination. The references at the foot of this page are the primary literature for each half, listed so you can see what does and does not exist.
Is this calculator free?: Yes. No account, no paywall, no usage limit. The protocol engine behind it is a separate product, but the calculator is open.
Does Klarovel sell this blend?: No. Klarovel is the protocol layer: a questionnaire, a deterministic rules engine and a generated protocol. Any product is fulfilled by partner suppliers, not by Klarovel. This page exists because the arithmetic of a fixed-ratio vial is genuinely hard to do in your head, not to move a product.
Is this medical advice?: No. It is arithmetic over published dose data, presented as a reference. It is not a prescription and not a recommendation to use any compound. Discuss peptide use with a qualified clinician.

Other blend calculators

Same engine, different vial. Pick the page that matches what you actually have in front of you: the component list and the ratio change the arithmetic completely.

References

These papers cover the pharmacology of both halves of the pair: the human dose-response and pulsatility work on CJC-1295 and its albumin-binding parent chemistry, and the selectivity, pharmacokinetic and clinical trial literature on ipamorelin. Note that the human CJC-1295 studies below used the long-acting drug-affinity-complex form, not the shorter-acting form these blend vials usually carry. The dose figures on this page come from the engine dose table, not from these papers.

The dose figures on this page are not sourced from these papers. They are read from the Klarovel engine's own dose table, which is cited inline wherever a number appears. These references cover mechanism, pharmacology and clinical context.

23 references, every identifier resolved against NCBI on 2026-08-03. Per peptide, a relevance-sorted esearch was run and every returned id was resolved through esummary. Any id esummary could not resolve was dropped, and any record carrying the 'Retracted Publication' pubtype was dropped. Titles, journals, years and first authors below are the values esummary returned, not authored text. One retracted record was dropped: PMID 37696839 (thymosin beta 4 query). Regenerated 2026-08-03 for cjc1295_no_dac, ipamorelin, pt141, retatrutide, aod9604 and sermorelin using the same esearch + esummary procedure; no record was added whose esummary payload lacked a title, journal or first author.

1.Teichman SL et al. Prolonged stimulation of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I secretion by CJC-1295, a long-acting analog of GH-releasing hormone, in healthy adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006. PMID 16352683
2.Ionescu M et al. Pulsatile secretion of growth hormone (GH) persists during continuous stimulation by CJC-1295, a long-acting GH-releasing hormone analog. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006. PMID 17018654
3.Alba M et al. Once-daily administration of CJC-1295, a long-acting growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH) analog, normalizes growth in the GHRH knockout mouse. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2006. PMID 16822960
4.Jetté L et al. Human growth hormone-releasing factor (hGRF)1-29-albumin bioconjugates activate the GRF receptor on the anterior pituitary in rats: identification of CJC-1295 as a long-lasting GRF analog. Endocrinology 2005. PMID 15817669
5.Sackmann-Sala L et al. Activation of the GH/IGF-1 axis by CJC-1295, a long-acting GHRH analog, results in serum protein profile changes in normal adult subjects. Growth Horm IGF Res 2009. PMID 19386527 PMC2787983
6.Henninge J et al. Identification of CJC-1295, a growth-hormone-releasing peptide, in an unknown pharmaceutical preparation. Drug Test Anal 2010. PMID 21204297
7.Timms M et al. An immuno polymerase chain reaction screen for the detection of CJC-1295 and other growth-hormone-releasing hormone analogs in equine plasma. Drug Test Anal 2019. PMID 30489688
8.Memdouh S et al. Advances in the detection of growth hormone releasing hormone synthetic analogs. Drug Test Anal 2021. PMID 34665524
9.Van Hout MC et al. Netnography of Female Use of the Synthetic Growth Hormone CJC-1295: Pulses and Potions. Subst Use Misuse 2016. PMID 26771670
10.Mayfield CK et al. Injectable Peptide Therapy: A Primer for Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Physicians. Am J Sports Med 2026. PMID 41476424
11.Mendias CL et al. Safety and Efficacy of Approved and Unapproved Peptide Therapies for Musculoskeletal Injuries and Athletic Performance. Sports Med 2026. PMID 41966639
12.Mavrych V et al. Therapeutic peptides in gerontology: mechanisms and applications for healthy aging. Front Aging 2026. PMID 42021992 PMC13095733
13.Raun K et al. Ipamorelin, the first selective growth hormone secretagogue. Eur J Endocrinol 1998. PMID 9849822
14.Gobburu JV et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of ipamorelin, a growth hormone releasing peptide, in human volunteers. Pharm Res 1999. PMID 10496658
15.Johansen PB et al. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of ipamorelin and other peptidyl growth hormone secretagogues with emphasis on nasal absorption. Xenobiotica 1998. PMID 9879640
16.Johansen PB et al. Ipamorelin, a new growth-hormone-releasing peptide, induces longitudinal bone growth in rats. Growth Horm IGF Res 1999. PMID 10373343
17.Andersen NB et al. The growth hormone secretagogue ipamorelin counteracts glucocorticoid-induced decrease in bone formation of adult rats. Growth Horm IGF Res 2001. PMID 11735244
18.Svensson J et al. The GH secretagogues ipamorelin and GH-releasing peptide-6 increase bone mineral content in adult female rats. J Endocrinol 2000. PMID 10828840
19.Beck DE et al. Prospective, randomized, controlled, proof-of-concept study of the Ghrelin mimetic ipamorelin for the management of postoperative ileus in bowel resection patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 2014. PMID 25331030
20.Venkova K et al. Efficacy of ipamorelin, a novel ghrelin mimetic, in a rodent model of postoperative ileus. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2009. PMID 19289567
21.Greenwood-Van Meerveld B et al. Efficacy of ipamorelin, a ghrelin mimetic, on gastric dysmotility in a rodent model of postoperative ileus. J Exp Pharmacol 2012. PMID 27186127 PMC4863553
22.Ankersen M et al. A new series of highly potent growth hormone-releasing peptides derived from ipamorelin. J Med Chem 1998. PMID 9733495
23.Sinha DK et al. Beyond the androgen receptor: the role of growth hormone secretagogues in the modern management of body composition in hypogonadal males. Transl Androl Urol 2020. PMID 32257855 PMC7108996

Beyond the arithmetic

A protocol resolves what a blend cannot.

The Klarovel engine reads your health data, resolves contraindications, sets the dose envelope by experience level, removes incompatible pairs and builds the cycling and monitoring schedule. Blood work is optional and sharpens the result. It is never required.