LibrarianMeg said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Second this. Nothing to add that would improve it.
LibrarianMeg said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Second this. Nothing to add that would improve it.
LibrarianMeg said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
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 BiochemFollowing on from LibrarianMeg — and this may be the naive question:
How much of the between-person variation is pharmacokinetic and how much is just adherence measured badly?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update. I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks. Worth knowing rather than worth repeating.