GHRP-2 vs MK-677
Research Verdict
Neither compound has a universal evidence advantage. Both peptides serve distinct research goals with comparable evidence; choose by target mechanism.
Quick Answers
Which is better, GHRP-2 or MK-677?
Neither compound has a universal evidence advantage. Both peptides serve distinct research goals with comparable evidence; choose by target mechanism.
What is the key difference between GHRP-2 and MK-677?
MK-677 is oral with a 24-hour half-life producing continuous GH elevation (non-pulsatile); GHRP-2 is injectable producing discrete GH pulses. The oral convenience vs. physiological pulsatility tradeoff is fundamental.
Evidence Comparison
MK-677 (ibutamoren): oral, Merck Phase 3 program abandoned for frailty (but large datasets exist: Nass 2008 JCEM elderly study, n=65). GHRP-2: injectable, smaller pharmacological studies, no Phase 3 program. MK-677 has more human exposure data; GHRP-2 produces more physiological GH pulsatility.
Evidence Context Favoring GHRP-2
Injectable GH secretagogue research where pulsatile GH release mimicking physiology is important.
Evidence Context Favoring MK-677
Oral dosing convenience, chronic dosing studies, or contexts where larger human datasets are needed for reference.
Side-by-Side Snapshot
| Evidence grade | GHRP-2: Level C MK-677: Level B |
|---|---|
| Research status | GHRP-2: Preclinical MK-677: Phase 3 |
| Primary category | GHRP-2: Growth Hormone MK-677: Growth Hormone |
| Cited studies | GHRP-2: 2 MK-677: 4 |