One 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.
Following on from jim_asheville — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.
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 BiochemDr.GutHealth said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
Worth separating that from liver and MASH, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Dr.GutHealth said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. I will report back once I have actually tried it.