tommy_boulder said:That holds where the measurement is reliable.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
tommy_boulder said:That holds where the measurement is reliable.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from tommy_boulder — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
dan_philly said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Pushing back on dan_philly here. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.