Why Some Protocols Cycle and Others Don't
BPC-157 runs in bursts around an injury. CJC-1295 runs for months. NAD+ often doesn't stop at all. The pattern isn't random.
Scan across the protocols on this site and the cycle-length column tells its own story: some compounds run in tight four-week bursts, some run continuously for months, and a few are framed as ongoing indefinitely. That variation isn't inconsistency between authors — it tracks a real underlying question: what is the compound actually responding to, and does that thing go away?
Injury-recovery peptides like BPC-157 and TB-500 are cycled around a specific, time-limited event — a strain, a tear, a period of elevated training load. Once the tissue has recovered, the rationale for continuing largely disappears, which is why those protocols are framed around the recovery window rather than an open-ended maintenance dose.
Compounds tied to an ongoing physiological process look different. Growth-hormone secretagogues like CJC-1295/Ipamorelin are sustaining a pulse-amplification effect that has no natural endpoint the way an injury does, which is why those protocols run in much longer blocks. NAD+ is framed as continuous for a similar reason: cellular NAD+ decline is an ongoing process tied to aging generally, not a discrete event with a resolution date, so there's no clear "recovered" signal to cycle around.
Kisspeptin sits in a third category — cycled not because an injury resolves, but because sustained stimulation of a hormone axis carries its own rationale for planned breaks, distinct from either of the other two patterns.
The general rule worth taking away: a cycle length isn't a default setting copied from compound to compound, it's a claim about what the compound is responding to and whether that thing has a natural end. Worth checking that logic on any protocol before assuming a fixed cycle applies.