20 months in and non-peptide is still the thing I get wrong
ACHIEVE. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/bpc157 is downstream of it. Titration speed, early fullness, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort ACHIEVE out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 8 months. My A1c was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
the absorption problem is solved by non-peptide structure
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
the absorption problem is solved by non-peptide structure
the small molecule is whether this actually works long-term
the small molecule is whether this actually works long-term
Adding to this: non-peptide is doing more work than the comment implies.
small molecule purity is different testing than peptides
Not to be pedantic but small molecule and oral GLP-1 are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Stalled for 18 weeks, changed nothing, and it started moving again on week 9.
Genuine question — what concentration were you at?
availability speculation must be flaired Speculation
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
the early fullness profile is speculative at this stage
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
the supply conversation changes if this approves
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
Did anything else change in the same window?
small molecule purity is different testing than peptides
small molecule purity is different testing than peptides
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the absorption problem is solved by non-peptide structure
Slight fix: the number was 96.8, not 99.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
the supply conversation changes if this approves
the fatigue profile is speculative at this stage
- 1Genuine question — what concentration were you at?7 comments in this branch · started by u/salma_almeida
- 2small molecule purity is different testing than peptides6 comments in this branch · started by u/lucia_bruun