jim_asheville said:The RDA is the wrong reference and it is worth understanding why.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly.
DEXA scan update relevant to protein intake:
Scanned at months 0, 6, and 12. Here are the body comp numbers:
| Baseline | Month 6 | Month 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total mass | 255 lbs | 215 lbs | 192 lbs |
| Fat mass | 95 lbs | 75 lbs | 42 lbs |
| Lean mass | 148 lbs | 150 lbs | 149 lbs |
| Body fat % | 40% | 30% | 21% |
Lean mass preserved — actually GAINED 1-2 lbs thanks to progressive overload + 1.4g/kg protein. The protein intake discussion needs to include body comp data, not just scale weight.
sean_dublin said:Prices dramatically below market are the strongest single signal, and the reason is arithmetic rather than suspicion.
I disagree that testing history is decisive. It tells you what a supplier did when they were being watched. Continuity of behaviour under stress — a late shipment, a failed test, a complaint — is more predictive than any run of good results.
Worth separating that from vendor vetting, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.