[Lab] 20th independent test on QSC, and the trend is the interesting part
Week 55 update. 46kg down from the start, early fullness basically gone since about week 95.
Things that worked: consistency, protein at breakfast, walking more than I want to. Things that did not: everything I bought on the internet to help with early fullness.
The part that surprised me is how much of this is admin. Ordering, storing, logging, remembering. Nobody mentions that the hard bit is not the drug, it is the routine.
Happy to answer anything. Please do not ask me what dose you should be on.
best — the order this archive was captured in
First order from FGP was great, second one had a different batch and tested lower. The vendor retested and credited me. Logged it here.
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 5–5. Practical consequence: what you feel in week 1 is not what that dose does.
First order from HJ was great, second one had a different batch and tested lower. The vendor retested and credited me. Logged it here.
Mechanistically the bit that matters is vendor. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.
Which service tested it and what did they come back with?
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.
receipts or nothing, sorry but that is the rule
Cosigning the evidence standard.
Adding to this: testing is doing more work than the comment implies.
the reship rate on TFC is actually pretty consistent
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
This order history matches mine almost exactly. Same vendor, same timeframe, same result.
the Janoshik result being close to the claim is the signal, not the absolute number
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
Not to be pedantic but vendor and Medutest are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
Disagree on that part. 97.9% and 97.6% on the same vial is normal.
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with PeptideMeter, not with what you concluded.
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
Not to be pedantic but Janoshik and Janoshik are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Yeah, GL Biochem took 7 days and the material was flawless. Both of those things are true.
vendor staff must self-identify, full stop
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard
- 1Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.15 comments in this branch · started by u/patient_labslip_log
- 2Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On…6 comments in this branch · started by u/zeynep_duarte