reading first time threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud.
The advice on what is in this community changed substantially around the start of last year, and nobody went back and updated the older posts. So depending on which thread the search engine hands you, you get two contradictory answers with the same confidence.
I have listed what I think the current consensus is below. Correct me — that is the point of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
link the wiki instead of retyping, but politely
no dose recommendations for individuals, even here
what is a COA — certificate of analysis, document from the lab
Slight fix: the number was 98.7, not 99.3. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Strongly agree. No question is dumb here.
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
Yeah, that is totally normal for week 16.
the first time question is not dumb
the first time question is not dumb
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 82 weeks to accept.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
week two nothing happening — yes, that is normal
the what is question is not dumb
be kind, condescending answers are removed
Strongly agree. No question is dumb here.
is this normal week 17 — yes, probably
- 1Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell…13 comments in this branch · started by u/viktor_kirchner
- 2No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot…7 comments in this branch · started by u/farid_jansen