Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Dr.PainCLE said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Dr.PainCLE said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Coming at Dr.PainCLE’s question from a different direction. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?