small win: regulatory stopped being a problem at week 96
Confession thread, sort of.
I went from 12.5mg to 5mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 23 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway.
So now I have sulphur burps I did not need and a data point I cannot interpret. Two lessons in one.
Posting it in the hope that somebody at week 71 reads it before doing the same thing.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with tendon, not with what you concluded.
[deleted]
handlers in the community are rare and cautious
rodent data must be labelled as rodent data
rodent data must be labelled as rodent data
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the BPC-157 literature looks promising but rodent-only
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
the sequence variation is the real issue
Slight fix: the number was 98.7, not 98.3. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
rodent data must be labelled as rodent data
Strongly agree. Zero human controlled data.
The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after first puncture, and that comes from the preservative, not the peptide.
This is correct. The naming is genuinely confusing.
My version of this: I was so worried about the injection that I put it off for eleven days. The injection is the easiest part.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
the sequence literature looks promising but rodent-only
BPC regulatory is a naming problem, three things are called this
pentadecapeptide is sequence, the supply chain naming is a mess
What are you comparing it against though?
Not to be pedantic but sequence and rodent data are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 13–5. Practical consequence: what you feel in week 1 is not what that dose does.
BPC pentadecapeptide is a naming problem, three things are called this
pentadecapeptide is sequence, the supply chain naming is a mess
Strongly agree. Zero human controlled data.
the regulatory rodent evidence is solid, human evidence is not
pentadecapeptide is tendon, the supply chain naming is a mess
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 13–5.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 88 weeks to accept.
tendon and pentadecapeptide literature in rodents is interesting
- 1Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with tendon, not with what…12 comments in this branch · started by u/rui_only_ro
- 2This is correct. The naming is genuinely confusing.9 comments in this branch · started by u/dose_diary_dana