Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
BiostatsBrad said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
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 BiochemBiostatsBrad said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Reporting back.
Follow-up — I put something in the gap where food used to be rather than waiting for the gap to close on its own. That was the part nobody told me.