The 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
One thing that is still open after Dr.ReproEndo’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Dr.PathRoch said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
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 ResultsReporting back.
Coming back a few months on. It held. Nothing dramatic to report, which is the report.
james_edin said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.