switched from 12.5mg to 0.5mg and the muscle cramps got better, not worse
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking purity against ApoB for 25 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
[removed by moderator]
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
Tested the GLB raw material and a reseller vial side-by-side. Same purity claim, different impurity profiles. Handling matters.
Tested the GLB raw material and a reseller vial side-by-side.
Disagree on that part. 93.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
the counterion is part of the mass you paid for
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 89 weeks to accept.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
No.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 84 weeks to accept.
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
Water content on the document? That affects your concentration math.
the batch number or it did not happen
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
the related substances line is where the story is
post the whole document, not the headline number
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
- 1the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing13 comments in this branch · started by u/wanjiru_varga
- 2This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.7 comments in this branch · started by u/sunday_shot_sal