roxy_nash said:The RDA is the wrong reference and it is worth understanding why.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.
DEXA scan update relevant to protein intake:
Scanned at months 0, 6, and 12. Here are the body comp numbers:
| Baseline | Month 6 | Month 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total mass | 255 lbs | 240 lbs | 212 lbs |
| Fat mass | 115 lbs | 75 lbs | 47 lbs |
| Lean mass | 153 lbs | 146 lbs | 149 lbs |
| Body fat % | 40% | 32% | 21% |
Lean mass preserved — actually GAINED 1-2 lbs thanks to progressive overload + 1.6g/kg protein. The protein intake discussion needs to include body comp data, not just scale weight.
hans_munich said:The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation.
I disagree that testing history is decisive. It tells you what a supplier did when they were being watched. Continuity of behaviour under stress — a late shipment, a failed test, a complaint — is more predictive than any run of good results.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Happy to go further on any of that.