CJC-1295 vs RAD-140 for weight loss
Short answer: For weight loss, more users report improvement with CJC-1295 — 100% of 23 reports, versus 93% of 61 for RAD-140.
CJC-1295 has 0 meta-analyses and 1 randomized trials on PubMed; RAD-140 has 0 and 0.
Based on 354 reports about CJC-1295 and 873 about RAD-140. Not medical advice.
| CJC-1295 Peptide | RAD-140 SARM | |
|---|---|---|
| Users say it helped | 57%helped131 reports · high confidence | 42%helped541 reports · high confidence |
| Verdict | Mixed | Mixed |
| Research | CResearch: Limited | DResearch: None |
| Meta-analyses / RCTs | 0 / 1 | 0 / 0 |
| Mainly used for | ||
| Performance % reporting improvement | 96% (23) | 93% (371) |
| Hormones % reporting improvement | 79% (24) | 7% (76) |
| Sleep % reporting improvement | 80% (44) | 2% (42) |
| Weight loss % reporting improvement | 100% (23) | 93% (61) |
| Energy % reporting improvement | 91% (11) | 44% (64) |
| Common side effects | flushing, allergic reaction, itching, increased appetite | suppression, hair loss, insomnia, fatigue |
| 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.”
RAD-140Full RAD-140 profile →
What a user said
“I did put on decent size and I feel a lot fuller. My strength and endurance has gone up tremendously. Side effects - Shedding of hair, anxiety...”
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