Subject: Why Peptide Cycles Look Like a Slope, Not a Light Switch
From: Derek from Peptide Price <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 01:14:23 +0000
List-Id: <derekpruski.substack.com>

View this post on the web at https://derekpruski.substack.com/p/why-peptide-cycles-look-like-a-slope

Most researchers picture peptide effects like flipping a switch. You dose, it works. You stop, it’s done. That mental model is going to set you up for frustration.
The reality is much closer to a slow incline and a slow decline — a gradual ramp up, a peak somewhere in the middle, and then a long ramp back down. Understanding this one concept will change how you approach every single cycle.
Section 1: Peptide Effects Build and Leave Gradually
When a research subject starts a peptide protocol, nothing happens overnight. Most peptides — especially the ones working through indirect pathways like GH secretagogues — need time to accumulate meaningful effects in the system.
Think of it like filling a bathtub with a slow faucet. After an hour, there’s barely any water. After six hours, you’re starting to see a real level. After a full day, the tub is full and running at capacity.
Here’s why: peptides don’t flip a biological switch. They nudge signaling pathways, gradually shift hormone levels, or slowly interact with receptors over repeated exposures. The body also responds incrementally — upregulating certain processes, adjusting baseline levels, building on previous doses.
What this means practically:
The first 1-2 weeks of a cycle are not a good measuring stick for whether something is “working”
Effects often peak somewhere in the middle-to-late portion of a cycle, not at the start
Changing doses or stopping abruptly in the early weeks means the researcher never actually experienced what the compound can do
The same logic applies on the way out. When the research subject stops dosing, the peptide doesn’t vanish immediately. Depending on the compound, half-lives, and how long the cycle ran, effects can linger for days to weeks after the last dose. The system tapers down — it doesn’t shut off.
This is why patience at the start and at the end of a cycle matters as much as the cycle itself.
Section 2: Half-Life Determines When Peak Concentration Actually Happens
Before getting into bloodwork and receptor sensitivity, it helps to understand half-life — because this is the mechanic driving almost everything else on this page.
Half-life is how long it takes for the concentration of a compound in the system to drop by half. But here’s what most researchers miss: half-life doesn’t just tell you how fast something leaves. It also tells you how long it takes to reach peak concentration in the first place.
A general rule: it takes roughly 4-5 half-lives of consistent dosing before a compound reaches what’s called steady state — the point where the amount entering the system and the amount leaving are roughly balanced. Before that point, concentration is still climbing. The researcher is still on the incline.
Tirzepatide is a clean example of this. It has a half-life of approximately 5 days. That means:
After one dose, concentration starts building
After roughly 4-5 half-lives — so somewhere around 20-25 days of weekly dosing — the system approaches steady state
That’s nearly a full month before the research subject is even operating at peak concentration
This is why researchers who dose tirzepatide for two or three weeks and conclude it “isn’t working as expected” are drawing that conclusion before the compound has had a chance to stabilize. The system is still climbing the slope.
On the flip side, because the half-life is long, clearance after stopping is also slow. Even after the last dose, meaningful concentrations remain in the system for weeks. The decline mirrors the incline — gradual, not immediate.
Shorter half-life peptides like BPC-157 or most GH secretagogues clear much faster, which means they reach steady state faster but also leave the system faster. The slope is steeper in both directions. Neither is better or worse — it just changes the timeline a researcher needs to account for.
Understanding the half-life of whatever is being researched should be the first step before setting expectations around timing, effects, or when to pull bloodwork.
Section 3: Bloodwork Follows the Same Curve
This catches a lot of researchers off guard. They pull labs two weeks into a cycle, see modest changes, and assume the compound isn’t doing much. Or they stop a cycle, pull labs a week later, and think they’re already back to baseline.
Neither snapshot tells the full story.
Bloodwork reflects a system in motion, not a fixed point. Biomarkers — IGF-1, fasting insulin, lipids, hormones — shift gradually in response to peptide exposure, just like the effects themselves. It takes time for the body’s internal environment to reflect what’s actually happening at the receptor and signaling level.
Using tirzepatide again as an example: if steady state isn’t reached until roughly week four, pulling labs at week two means pulling them while the system is still ramping. Those numbers will look different than labs pulled at week six or eight when concentration has actually stabilized. Neither draw is wrong — but they’re measuring two different points on the slope, and treating them as equivalent will lead to bad conclusions.
This means:
Labs pulled too early in a cycle will underrepresent what the compound is doing
Labs pulled too soon after stopping will overrepresent how recovered the system actually is
The most useful bloodwork is pulled after the system has had enough time to stabilize in either direction — typically several weeks into a cycle, or several weeks after ending one
If a researcher is using bloodwork to make decisions about dosing, cycle length, or whether to run something again, timing the draw matters as much as what’s being measured. A single early snapshot is data — but it’s incomplete data. The trend across multiple draws, spaced out over the arc of a cycle, tells a much more accurate story.
Treat bloodwork like the rest of the cycle: gradual, patient, and read in context — not as an instant readout.
Section 4: Receptor Sensitivity Works on Its Own Timeline (and It’s Not the Same Clock)
This is where a lot of researchers make a costly mistake. They think once the peptide is cleared from the system, the slate is wiped clean and they can start fresh.
Not quite.
Receptor sensitivity is a separate variable from the peptide being present or absent. When receptors are exposed to a compound repeatedly — especially at higher doses — they adapt. They downregulate. They become less responsive to the same signal. This is the body protecting itself from overstimulation.
Here’s the important part: the peptide leaving the system does not automatically reset receptor sensitivity.
If a researcher ran a high dose protocol for an extended period, the receptors that were repeatedly stimulated need their own recovery time — independent of how long it takes for the compound to clear. The higher the dose and the longer the exposure, the longer that reset window tends to be.
A simple way to think about it:
Low dose, shorter cycle = relatively faster receptor recovery
High dose, longer cycle = extended receptor recovery, even after clearance
This is exactly why jumping from one cycle straight into the next — or bridging with something that hits the same receptors — works against the researcher. The receptors haven’t recovered. The research subject is just pushing diminished returns forward instead of letting the system actually reset.
A real washout period — not a token one or two weeks, but a genuine 4-6+ week break depending on what was run — gives receptors the time they need to normalize. Skipping this is one of the most common reasons researchers report “it stopped working” on their second or third cycle when they were running the exact same protocol that worked before.
The Practical Takeaway: Low and Slow Is a System, Not Just a Dosing Strategy
Starting low and building slowly isn’t just about safety — it’s about giving the researcher’s system time to respond incrementally and giving you (the observer) accurate data.
If you flood the system on week one, you lose the ability to pinpoint what’s working, what’s too much, and what the actual effective dose is for that research subject.
A practical framework to carry into every cycle:
Start at the lower end of a sensible research range
Learn the half-life of whatever is being researched before setting any expectations on timing
Hold the starting dose for at least 2-3 weeks before evaluating — longer for compounds with extended half-lives
Adjust slowly — changes take time to show up
Don’t measure results at week one or two; measure at week four or five, after steady state has had a chance to establish
Time bloodwork correctly — several weeks in, or several weeks after stopping — not immediately at either end
When the cycle ends, treat the washout seriously — especially if doses were on the higher side
Don’t rush back in. The next cycle will perform better if the receptor baseline is actually recovered
The researchers who get the most consistent results long-term are almost always the ones who treat each cycle like a slow experiment — not a sprint to results.
This post is for research and educational purposes only. Nothing here constitutes medical advice.

Unsubscribe https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9kZXJla3BydXNraS5zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vYWN0aW9uL2Rpc2FibGVfZW1haWw_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpveU56TTJNakl6T1Rnc0luQnZjM1JmYVdRaU9qRTVNalUyTXpjME15d2lhV0YwSWpveE56YzBPRE16TWpjMExDSmxlSEFpT2pFNE1EWXpOamt5TnpRc0ltbHpjeUk2SW5CMVlpMHpNelkxTXpZM0lpd2ljM1ZpSWpvaVpHbHpZV0pzWlY5bGJXRnBiQ0o5LjB3Yk8zQTBROFc3TGlTbU14SEV6dktHWEhwVkd5SFFGMXJWTW9hUW1aZWsiLCJwIjoxOTI1NjM3NDMsInMiOjMzNjUzNjcsImYiOnRydWUsInUiOjI3MzYyMjM5OCwiaWF0IjoxNzc0ODMzMjc0LCJleHAiOjIwOTA0MDkyNzQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0wIiwic3ViIjoibGluay1yZWRpcmVjdCJ9.nBaiNS6iH3--gS0BLBWVArdl_r664XrsXOwbNuIxb_A?