From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
PeptideChemSF said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
PeptideChemSF said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne concrete data point for the thread. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
Following on from PeptideChemSF — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?