From the other side of the consultation, briefly. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
james_edin said:Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then…
Can confirm the pattern james_edin describes. The dose-response is real but shallow at the top. Across STEP 1 and STEP 4 the gap between 1.7mg and 2.4mg is a couple of percentage points of body weight on average, and the average is carrying a wide spread — plenty of people at 1.7mg sit above the 2.4mg mean. If a dose is working and tolerable, "working" is the relevant variable, not "maximal".
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsjames_edin said:Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then…
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.