When is a peptide cycle marketing rather than science?

When a seller or a plan page prints a specific on and off calendar without a study that compared that calendar to steady use, the number is marketing or habit, not a finding. Four weeks on, two weeks off is the most common example. It did not come from a peptide study. The one measured reason to cycle in this catalogue is the body getting used to growth hormone releasers, over hours to days. Even that research is a real 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 was tested 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.