GH secretagogues at what most people describe as a standard dose gave me water retention for the first 10 days.
Loose evidence is not the same as no evidence and people overcorrect in both directions.
Cold storage, light protection, and a date on the vial. Boring, and it removes half the variables.
Where does the human data stop and the extrapolation start?
Read methods.
Reconstitution arithmetic is only half the problem. The other half is what was in the vial.
Narrow conclusion, briefly right. Broad conclusion, interestingly wrong. I know which I keep choosing. How long have you been on GH secretagogues?
Read methods.
Most of what is called evidence here is one person, one vial, one month.
Underdosing and tolerance are indistinguishable from the inside, and everyone picks the flattering explanation.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison.
Nobody has ever been talked out of a stack by a stranger on the internet. Not on GH secretagogues but the pattern is familiar.
Three questions kill most of the confidence in a thread like this: sample size, blinding, who paid.
Narrow conclusion.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison.
Underdosing and tolerance are indistinguishable from the inside, and everyone picks the flattering explanation.
Nobody has ever been talked out of a stack by a stranger on the internet. Water retention was my main issue with GH secretagogues too.
Three questions kill most of the confidence in a thread like this: sample size, blinding, who paid.