Understand the source comparison
Peptides for Body Recomposition Research: Protocol Comparison
The following table compares the most frequently studied peptide protocols for body recomposition research, including primary mechanism, typical dosing ranges, and the specific metabolic outcome each compound targets. Ipamorelin + CJC-1295 GH secretagogue (GHR
No winner is assigned.
This page preserves a source comparison for education. It does not add a rating, recommendation or clinical judgment.
- The following table compares the most frequently studied peptide protocols for body recomposition research, including primary mechanism, typical dosing ranges, and the specific metabolic outcome each compound targets.
- Ipamorelin + CJC-1295
- GH secretagogue (GHRH + ghrelin receptor agonism)
- 200–300 mcg each, 1–2x daily
- Lean mass preservation, elevated IGF-1
- Best-studied protocol for maintaining anabolic signaling during caloric deficit; requires pulsatile dosing
- Tirzepatide
- Dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist
- 5–15 mg weekly (titrated over 20 weeks)
- Preferential fat loss (89% fat vs 11% lean)
- Strongest clinical evidence for fat-to-lean loss ratio; GI side effects require slow titration
- Tesamorelin
- GHRH analog (selective GH pulse)
- 2 mg daily (subcutaneous)
- Visceral fat reduction without lean mass loss
- FDA-approved for lipodystrophy; demonstrated 15% visceral fat reduction in HIV patients
- AOD9604
- Beta-3 adrenergic agonist (HSL activation)
- 500 mcg–1 mg daily
- Lipolysis without affecting blood glucose or IGF-1
- Fat mobilization only—requires energy deficit to translate into fat loss
- 5-Amino-1MQ
- NNMT inhibitor (increases NAD+, activates sirtuins)
- 50–100 mg daily (oral)
- Increased energy expenditure, mitochondrial biogenesis
- Promising preclinical data; human dosing protocols still emerging
- SS-31 (Elamipretide)
- Mitochondrial membrane stabilizer (cardiolipin binding)
- 20–40 mg daily (subcutaneous)
- Improved ATP efficiency, preserved mitochondrial function during deficit
- Prevents metabolic adaptation; most valuable in combination protocols
- The comparison makes clear that no single peptide addresses all components of body recomposition. GH secretagogues preserve muscle but don't directly drive fat loss. GLP-1 agonists create preferential fat loss but don't enhance anabolism. Metabolic enhancers shift substrate utilization but require training stimulus to build muscle. That's why research protocols increasingly use multi-peptide stacks—pairing a GH secretagogue for anabolic support with a GLP-1 agonist for fat loss and a metabolic enhancer for fuel partitioning.