Meta-level question: how do you evaluate evidence for lion mane when the human data is thin and most trials are small?
Forum consensus and published consensus diverged here about five years ago and never reconverged.
I would rather have a narrow conclusion and be right than a broad one and be interesting.
Curious whether the popular dose has any basis or is just the convenient one.
How long before you can reasonably say something is or is not doing anything?
How long before you can reasonably say something is or is not doing anything?
My rule, after years of this: if it cannot survive being written down with the numbers attached, it is marketing. Currently on lion mane myself.
Sleep, food, or the compound? Yes.
Read methods. A year in on lion mane and it lines up.
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero?
Narrow conclusion.
A plausible mechanism is not an outcome, and this class is the textbook example.
Is a baseline blood test really necessary before starting something like this?
Sleep, food, or the compound? Yes.
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero?
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero? Not on lion mane but the pattern is familiar.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison.
Same here.
Same for me with lion mane, unfortunately.