Dr.SportsMedIN said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Dr.SportsMedIN said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Dr.SportsMedIN said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
raj_cambridge said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.