68 weeks on · no break
Why a break: Not conventionally cycled. The approved use is continuous, and the trial that established the effect ran 68 weeks without a break.
On stopping: This is one of the few compounds on the site where discontinuation has been studied rather than guessed. Weight regain after stopping is well documented across the class, and the published extension work found most of the lost weight returned within a year. Treat it as a maintained-effect compound.
72 weeks on · no break
Why a break: Not conventionally cycled. The labelled schedule is continuous once the maintenance amount is reached.
On stopping: The randomised withdrawal work in this class shows substantial regain after stopping. The 176-week follow-up describes what continued use looks like, not what stopping looks like.
48 weeks on · no break
Why a break: Not cycled in the trial. The phase 2 ran 48 weeks continuously with a 4-week safety follow-up.
On stopping: Unstudied. The phase 2 followed participants for four weeks after treatment, which is a safety window rather than a durability measurement. Nothing published describes what happens to the weight change after stopping.
68 weeks on · no break
Why a break: Not cycled. Both the monotherapy dose-finding trial and the phase 3 combination programme ran continuously.
On stopping: Unstudied as a separate question. The mechanism is satiety signalling, which by construction stops when the drug does.
52 weeks on · no break
Why a break: The approved use is continuous daily administration, not a cycle.
On stopping: Studied, and the result matters: visceral fat returned toward baseline after discontinuation in the published follow-up. This is a maintained-effect compound and the effect is not banked.
8 weeks on · 4 weeks off
Why a break: The eight-on, four-off convention has no source. It appears to have been imported wholesale from anabolic steroid practice, where cycling exists to allow recovery of suppressed endogenous hormone production. BPC-157 suppresses nothing, so the rationale does not transfer even in principle.
On stopping: No human data of any kind. The only registered human trial used oral tablets over two weeks and never posted results.
6 weeks on · 4 weeks off
Why a break: A loading period followed by maintenance, then a break. The structure is convention; no trial has compared it with continuous use or with nothing.
On stopping: Not studied for this compound. The linked human study used full-length thymosin beta-4 intravenously for ten consecutive days and measured pharmacokinetics, not durability.
6 weeks on · 4 weeks off
Why a break: Copper accumulation is the argument usually given for limiting duration. It is a reasonable concern and it has not been quantified for injected use in any published human study.
On stopping: Not studied. The one human randomised trial ran twelve weeks topically and was negative on every objective endpoint, so there was no effect to observe the loss of.
4 weeks on · 4 weeks off
Why a break: There is no rationale to report. The figures in circulation are conventions applied to a compound with no human record.
On stopping: The FDA's compounding advisory briefing states it has identified no clinical studies and no human exposure data for KPV by any route. There is nothing to say about stopping because there is nothing published about starting.
12 weeks on · 4 weeks off
Why a break: Receptor desensitisation is the argument: sustained secretagogue exposure is expected to blunt the pulse it produces. That is a real pharmacological concern for this class and it has not been measured in a published human trial of this compound.
On stopping: Unstudied. Any effect on the growth hormone axis is expected to reverse, since the mechanism is stimulation rather than replacement.
12 weeks on · 4 weeks off
Why a break: Same desensitisation argument as the other secretagogues, and the same absence of a trial testing it.
On stopping: Unstudied. The only human randomised trial ran about a week after surgery, intravenously, and missed its endpoint.
4 weeks on · 4 weeks off
Why a break: No rationale can be reported. The first interventional human study was registered in 2026 and its registry entry does not disclose the amount administered.
On stopping: No human exposure has been published, so nothing is known about stopping.
2 weeks on · 2 weeks off
Why a break: The Russian literature describes short courses rather than continuous use, so the short on-period here is closer to the published pattern than most conventions on this page.
On stopping: One published trial reports the anxiolytic effect persisting for about a week after the last administration. That is unusually specific for this category and worth noting.
2 weeks on · 3 weeks off
Why a break: The published stroke work used courses of five to ten days, in one trial repeated after a twenty-day break. Continuous multi-week use is a community extension of that, not a copy of it.
On stopping: Not studied as a separate question.
12 weeks on · 4 weeks off
Why a break: Convention. The sponsor programme ran continuously for up to six months and did not cycle anything.
On stopping: Not a meaningful question here: the human programme did not demonstrate a significant weight effect against placebo at its primary endpoint, and development stopped. There is no effect whose loss could be measured.
4 weeks on · 4 weeks off
Why a break: Convention. Clinic infusion schedules are built around cost and appointment logistics as much as around anything pharmacological.
On stopping: Blood NAD+ concentration falls when supplementation stops. Whether that matters depends on a downstream clinical benefit that has been inconsistent in the published record.
8 weeks on · 4 weeks off
Why a break: Convention. There is no published human dosing trial to cycle against.
On stopping: No human exposure data has been published.
2 weeks on · 24 weeks off
Why a break: Short courses repeated once or twice a year, following the pattern described in the originating Russian literature.
On stopping: Not characterised in any adequately reported human trial.