the below spec question that gets asked weekly, answered properly
below spec. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/coa is downstream of it. Titration speed, muscle cramps, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort below spec out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 12 months. My triglycerides was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
QYB claimed 97.2%, PeptideMeter came back 98.1%. 21 points is inter-lab variance, no drama.
Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.
The Janoshik result at 98.9% was below the 99.2% claim. QST retested at their cost and came back 98.9%. Logged as resolved.
Not to be pedantic but below spec and Janoshik are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
Which VendorInvestigate service and what method did they use?
do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
QYB / BPC / batch 22 / PeptideMeter / 99.3% — that is the shape
- 1testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different…7 comments in this branch · started by u/camila_kowalski