someone explain goal to me like I have not read a paper in years
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking progress against eGFR for 17 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
I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.
What was the batch number and which service?
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
no commenting on anybody's body, comment on the process
Stalled for 13 weeks, changed nothing, and it started moving again on week 77.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
no images, none, not even redacted ones
Which country? Half the answers in this thread only apply in the UK.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Adding to this: timeframe is doing more work than the comment implies.
Came off after 82 weeks for financial reasons. Regained about a third over the following year. Back on now at a much lower dose.
Second this question. I have wondered about milestone for 24 months and never seen a straight answer.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
include timeframe and starting point or it is a brag with no info
include timeframe and starting point or it is a brag with no info
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
Which country? Half the answers in this thread only apply in Germany.
text only is the whole point of the community
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Has anyone actually got this in writing, or is it forum lore at this point?
no images, none, not even redacted ones
the milestone change matters as much as the scale
the milestone change matters as much as the scale
Disagree on that part. 99.2% and 99.0% on the same vial is normal.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
Yeah, text-only removes the comparison.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
- 1no commenting on anybody's body, comment on the process8 comments in this branch · started by u/elise_ramos
- 2Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next…7 comments in this branch · started by u/wholesome_lurker