does area percent actually matter or is it forum lore at this point
Posting this because I searched for it and got nothing useful.
Setup: 1.0mg, week 69, constipation present but not ruining anything. I changed exactly one variable — area percent — and tracked it for 12 weeks.
Result: a difference, but a small one, and well inside what I would call noise if someone else posted it. So I am putting it here rather than presenting it as a finding. If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something.
Not medical advice, obviously. This is one person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
post the whole document, not the headline number
[deleted]
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
Strongly agree.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
The COA I was holding said 96.8% area and I thought it was trash. Turns out the method was solid and the impurity profile was clean.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
post the whole document, not the headline number
the counterion is part of the mass you paid for
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
Sent one vial to Janoshik and VendorInvestigate. 94.2% and 95.1%. Cost me more than the vial did and I would do it again.
Four months on the site and I was confusing area% and mass% in every post I made. One explainer thread and it clicked.
the counterion is part of the mass you paid for
Four months on the site and I was confusing area% and mass% in every post I made.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 40 weeks to accept.
Small correction: the trial was 8 weeks, not 35. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
Tested the GLB raw material and a reseller vial side-by-side. Same purity claim, different impurity profiles. Handling matters.
axis labels included, always
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
This is the correct framing.
Adding to this: water content is doing more work than the comment implies.
- 1post the whole document, not the headline number6 comments in this branch · started by u/bastian_moreau
- 2Sent one vial to Janoshik and VendorInvestigate. 94.2% and 95.1%. Cost me…5 comments in this branch · started by u/tomas_lehtinen