Dr.SurgeonPGH said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
One thing that is still open after Dr.SurgeonPGH’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.NateNeph said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Dr.NateNeph said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.