I do not think a single nicotine study settles anything, but the aggregate is more interesting than any individual paper.
Baseline first. Without a baseline the after picture is decoration.
Most of the popular protocols are borrowed from clinical populations and applied to healthy people without comment.
The effect size I actually noticed is roughly a third of what the write-ups imply, and it took a fortnight to be sure.
How do you separate the compound effect from the routine around it?
Stupid question: how do you know whether what is in the vial matches the label at all?
Stupid question: how do you know whether what is in the vial matches the label at all?
Name the active ingredient, not just the brand. It makes these threads searchable years later.
Baseline first. Without a baseline the after picture is decoration. Same for me with nicotine, unfortunately.
Loose evidence and no evidence are different, and people overcorrect in both directions.
Narrow conclusion.
This board overrates bloodwork. A number moving is not the outcome you wanted. A fortnight in on nicotine and it lines up.
Same here.
Same for me with nicotine, unfortunately.
Baseline first. Without a baseline the after picture is decoration.
Underdosing and tolerance are indistinguishable from the inside, and everyone picks the flattering explanation.
Most of what is called evidence here is one person, one vial, one month.
Stupid question: how do you know whether what is in the vial matches the label at all?
Same here.
Is a baseline blood test really necessary before starting something like this?