Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Dr.ReproEndo said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.
Dr.ReproEndo said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding 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.
Following on from Dr.ReproEndo — and this may be the naive question:
What the dose-response curve actually looks like above 1.7mg, because the trial means hide how few people account for the extra loss?