CJC-1295 vs IGF-1 LR3 for performance
Short answer: For performance, more users report improvement with CJC-1295 — 96% of 23 reports, versus 91% of 22 for IGF-1 LR3.
CJC-1295 has 0 meta-analyses and 1 randomized trials on PubMed; IGF-1 LR3 has 0 and 0.
Based on 354 reports about CJC-1295 and 78 about IGF-1 LR3. Not medical advice.
| CJC-1295 Peptide | IGF-1 LR3 Peptide | |
|---|---|---|
| Users say it helped | 57%helped131 reports · high confidence | 60%helped35 reports · medium confidence |
| Verdict | Mixed | Mostly positive |
| Research | CResearch: Limited | DResearch: None |
| Meta-analyses / RCTs | 0 / 1 | 0 / 0 |
| Mainly used for | ||
| Recovery % reporting improvement | 97% (31) | 93% (15) |
| Sleep % reporting improvement | 80% (44) | — |
| Performance % reporting improvement | 96% (23) | 91% (22) |
| Weight loss % reporting improvement | 100% (23) | 100% (6) |
| Hormones % reporting improvement | 79% (24) | — |
| Common side effects | flushing, allergic reaction, itching, increased appetite | hypoglycemia, permagut, drowsiness, tumor growth |
| Typical dose reported | Not listed | Not listed |
CJC-1295Full CJC-1295 profile →
What a user said
“Within a few weeks on cjc I noticed that I was more full, leaner, and sleep/recover was off the charts. My skin is crazy bright as well.”
IGF-1 LR3Full IGF-1 LR3 profile →
What a user said
“I've tried growth hormone and IGF-1 LR3 and I feel like they increased the effectiveness by 1.5-2x depending on the dosage used.”
Related comparisons
Percentages come from first-hand user reports and are not clinical outcomes. Talk to a doctor before starting, stopping or combining anything. How we rate