GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics: different mechanisms, conflated discussion

I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.

Reconstitution volumes in this family are often small enough that dead volume in the syringe is a meaningful fraction of the dose. A fixed-needle insulin syringe is worth the trouble here specifically.

Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.

Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.

Post #15 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Sermorelin and the growth hormone releasing hormone analogues depend on a functioning pituitary response, which is the mechanistic reason they behave differently in different people rather than a dosing problem.

Answering the question post #15 raises rather than the one it answers.

GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics are often conflated but they are different mechanisms. GHRH analogues (like CJC-1295) cause the pituitary to release growth hormone. Ghrelin mimetics (like GHRPs) act on the ghrelin receptor directly. The effect on growth hormone secretion is similar but the mechanisms are distinct.

The arithmetic in post #19 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Growth hormone secretagogues act on the ghrelin receptor or on the growth hormone releasing hormone receptor rather than supplying growth hormone, which is the distinction that matters for anyone reading the literature.

A modest claim, modestly supported.

The most useful thing anyone has posted about GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.

I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.

This follows post #20 rather than contradicting it.

CJC-1295 exists in two forms in circulation — with and without the drug affinity complex — and they have very different half-lives. Product descriptions frequently do not say which, and the difference is not cosmetic.

Written quickly, so the reasoning may be tighter than the wording.

GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.

I think the GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.

Coming back to post #22, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Storage: these are lyophilised short peptides and are generally reasonably stable dry and considerably less so in solution. Reconstituting only what will be used within the period the supplier's own data covers is the conservative approach.

That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around.

GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics are often conflated but they are different mechanisms. GHRH analogues (like CJC-1295) cause the pituitary to release growth hormone. Ghrelin mimetics (like GHRPs) act on the ghrelin receptor directly. The effect on growth hormone secretion is similar but the mechanisms are distinct.

Confirming post #28 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

Acetate versus trifluoroacetate is worth asking about for short peptides specifically, because the counter-ion is a larger proportion of the total mass at low molecular weight.

If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.

Helpful, and easy to find again, which is half of what a good reply is.