Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Dr.EndoEP said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Dr.EndoEP said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What the dose-response curve actually looks like above 1.7mg, because the trial means hide how few people account for the extra loss?