Eight weeks, three phases
If you are going to stack, this is the structure the Playbook gives.
| Weeks | Action |
|---|---|
| 1–3 | Start peptide A solo. Track effects daily. |
| 4–6 | Add peptide B at its lowest dose. Continue tracking both. |
| 7–8 | Evaluate. Are the combined effects worth the added cost, complexity and unknown risk? |
Eight weeks minimum. Not eight weeks if it goes well.
Phase 1: weeks 1–3, A solo
Three weeks rather than the two-week minimum, because you are establishing the baseline that everything after this is measured against. Rushing this phase means the rest of the framework has nothing to compare to.
Track daily using the log from Module 5. Sleep, energy, pain, plus notes. You are building the reference picture of what peptide A alone does to you.
Choose A deliberately: it should be the compound addressing your primary goal. The Playbook's "which protocol is right for me" decision tree resolves to a single primary goal for exactly this reason.
Phase 2: weeks 4–6, add B at the lowest dose
The lowest dose. What the framework introduces here is the bottom of peptide B's range, not the middle of it and not the dose you eventually want.
The commonly researched ranges published for these compounds start at 100 mcg for DSIP, 100 mcg for ipamorelin and 250 mcg for BPC-157.
You are looking for a signal, not an effect. If something goes wrong at the lowest dose you have learned it cheaply.
Keep peptide A completely unchanged during this phase. Same dose, same timing, same site rotation. Changing two variables at once reintroduces exactly the attribution problem the framework exists to prevent.
Phase 3: weeks 7–8, evaluate
The question is not "do I feel good". It is:
Are the combined effects worth the added cost, complexity and unknown risk?
Three specific things to compare:
Effect. Is your log measurably different in weeks 4–6 versus weeks 1–3? Not "does it feel better". Is the number different across enough days to mean something?
Cost. Two compounds roughly doubles the spend. Look at the per-cycle figures. Does the delta justify it?
Risk. You now have two variables of uncertain purity, an unstudied interaction, and a more complex protocol to stay adherent to. That is a real cost even when nothing goes wrong.
If the honest answer is that peptide B added little, dropping it is the correct outcome. This is what the framework is for.
Bloodwork is non-negotiable
Baseline labs before starting: IGF-1, metabolic panel, CBC, lipid panel. Retest at week 8.
The Playbook uses the phrase "non-negotiable for stacking" specifically. Solo protocols can arguably get by on baseline and end-of-cycle. Stacking cannot, because the whole premise is that you are doing something with no interaction data behind it.
What this framework is really teaching
Sequencing. Every part of it is the same discipline applied at different scales: solo baseline, lowest dose, one variable at a time, scheduled evaluation.
It is also, not coincidentally, how you would design a study with a sample size of one. That is the correct frame: you are the experiment, and the framework is the protocol that makes your own results mean something.