Long post, sorry. Hexarelin: what actually has human evidence behind it, and what is extrapolation from animals?
The animal data is stronger than the human data and the human data is not nothing, it is just small.
My rule now: if a claim cannot survive being written down with the numbers attached, it is marketing.
Forum consensus and published consensus diverged here about five years ago and never reconverged.
Curious whether the popular dose has any basis or is just the convenient one.
If it needs three other compounds to notice, you have not tested the first one.
How long before you can reasonably say something is or is not doing anything?
I would take the narrow conclusion. Broad ones are more interesting and less true.
My rule, after years of this: if it cannot survive being written down with the numbers attached, it is marketing.
Test one thing at a time. It feels slower and it is the only way to learn anything. Currently on hexarelin myself.
Test one thing at a time. It feels slower and it is the only way to learn anything.
Is a baseline blood test really necessary before starting something like this?
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison. Not on hexarelin but the pattern is familiar.
Most of what is called evidence here is one person, one vial, one month.
Is a baseline blood test really necessary before starting something like this?
A plausible mechanism is not an outcome, and this class is the textbook example.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison. Same for me with hexarelin, unfortunately.
Stupid question: how do you know whether what is in the vial matches the label at all?
Underdosing and tolerance are indistinguishable from the inside, and everyone picks the flattering explanation.