stalled for 20 weeks at 1.0mg and I refuse to panic this time
Posting this because I searched for it and got nothing useful.
Setup: 15mg, week 88, sulphur burps present but not ruining anything. I changed exactly one variable — related substances — and tracked it for 21 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
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
Water content on the document? That affects your concentration math.
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
Asked FGP for the batch-specific COA and they sent it within six hours, full document, batch number, date, everything. That is the baseline.
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
This is the correct framing.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
[deleted]
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
- 1This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.5 comments in this branch · started by u/karma_irrelevant
- 2purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial4 comments in this branch · started by u/wrong_network_w