Understand the source comparison
Can Peptides Help Lean Bulk: GH Secretagogue vs SARM vs Anabolic Steroid Comparison
GH Secretagogues (CJC-1295, Ipamorelin) Stimulates endogenous GH release via ghrelin receptor activation 1.2–1.8kg lean mass Minimal (<0.5kg) due to GH-mediated lipolysis None. Does not suppress natural GH production Best risk-to-benefit ratio for lean bulking
No winner is assigned.
This page preserves a source comparison for education. It does not add a rating, recommendation or clinical judgment.
- GH Secretagogues (CJC-1295, Ipamorelin)
- Stimulates endogenous GH release via ghrelin receptor activation
- 1.2–1.8kg lean mass
- Minimal (<0.5kg) due to GH-mediated lipolysis
- None. Does not suppress natural GH production
- Best risk-to-benefit ratio for lean bulking; preserves natural hormone axis while optimising nutrient partitioning
- SARMs (Ostarine, LGD-4033)
- Selective androgen receptor modulation in muscle and bone tissue
- 2.0–3.5kg lean mass
- Low (0.5–1.0kg)
- Moderate. Suppresses LH/FSH and testosterone production
- Higher lean mass gains than GH secretagogues but requires post-cycle therapy and carries androgen-related side effects
- Anabolic Steroids (Testosterone, Nandrolone)
- Direct androgen receptor agonism systemically
- 4.0–7.0kg lean mass
- Moderate to high (1.5–3.0kg) depending on aromatisation
- Severe. Full suppression of HPTA requiring extended recovery
- Highest absolute lean mass gains but poorest lean-to-fat ratio and most significant endocrine disruption