One concrete data point for the thread. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
TirzTom said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsTirzTom said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update — tachyphylaxis to the gastric effect, persistence of the appetite effect. Two curves, and I had been watching the wrong one.