From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
james_edin said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
james_edin said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne concrete data point for the thread. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.