When is a peptide cycle marketing rather than science?

When a seller or a protocol page prints a specific on/off calendar without a trial that compared that calendar to continuous use, the number is marketing or convention, not a finding. Four weeks on, two weeks off is the most common example. It did not come from a peptide trial. The one measured cycling mechanism in this catalogue is GH secretagogue desensitization at hours to days, and even that literature is a genuine dispute, not a printed schedule. If the page cannot name the comparison that produced the weeks, treat the weeks as sales copy. Full breakdown at /cycling.

Full cycling page: what is measured versus assumed

Educational use only. This database summarizes published research and is not medical advice. Where a dose appears it is a record of what a trial or clinic ran, or what people describe doing, with its source attached. Nothing here is a recommendation for personal use.

Part of cycling and clearance. Whether peptides need a break, what a half-life actually tells you, and where a real cycling mechanism has been measured. Full detail at /cycling.