batch: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1
Confession thread, sort of.
I went from 1.7mg to 0.25mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 9 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway.
So now I have injection-site soreness I did not need and a data point I cannot interpret. Two lessons in one.
Posting it in the hope that somebody at week 17 reads it before doing the same thing.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Yeah, the PeptideMeter number matching the claim is the actual signal.
the Janoshik and VendorInvestigate results differ by 4 points, both inside inter-lab variance
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
multiple batches from SWB show a spread, that is the data
[deleted]
the Medutest and PeptideMeter results differ by 20 points, both inside inter-lab variance
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
the 93.7% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
Yeah, the Medutest number matching the claim is the actual signal.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Was that the vendor COA or your own test?
Mechanistically the bit that matters is test results. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
reship and retest is the honest way to handle a low result
I am going to push back on this slightly.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 23 weeks to accept.
do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body
multiple batches from QYB show a spread, that is the data
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
Not to be pedantic but batch and purity are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Not to be pedantic but batch and purity are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Adding to this: below spec is doing more work than the comment implies.
Tested 17 batches from CPC over 90 weeks. Spread was 98.7% to 98.9, mostly 98.7. Consistent vendor.
Yeah, the VendorInvestigate number matching the claim is the actual signal.
Tested 20 batches from GL Biochem over 49 weeks. Spread was 94.2% to 97.9, mostly 94.2. Consistent vendor.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
the VendorInvestigate and Janoshik results differ by 20 points, both inside inter-lab variance
My VendorInvestigate result matched the vendor COA exactly, which is rare. GGPeps deserves that note in the directory.
- 1I am going to push back on this slightly.5 comments in this branch · started by u/crp_curious
- 2Yeah, the VendorInvestigate number matching the claim is the actual signal.5 comments in this branch · started by u/rina_bergstrom