Meta-level question: how do you evaluate evidence for BPC-157 when the human data is thin and most trials are small?
Vivid dreams and mild headache for the first 13 days, then nothing. Textbook for this class, apparently.
There is a serious question about whether the studied form matches what is sold, and nobody in a thread can answer it.
The effect size I actually noticed is roughly a third of what the write-ups imply, and it took four months to be sure.
Animal data is much of what exists here and the human stuff is thin and small.
Interested in the methods more than the conclusion.
Same here.
Same for me with BPC-157, unfortunately.
My rule, after years of this: if it cannot survive being written down with the numbers attached, it is marketing. How long have you been on BPC-157?
Log dose, time and sleep. Ten seconds a day and it turns the anecdote into something you can look at.
Underdosing and tolerance are indistinguishable from the inside, and everyone picks the flattering explanation.
If it needs three other compounds to notice, you have not tested the first one.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison.
Is a baseline blood test really necessary before starting something like this?
Read methods.
Narrow conclusion, briefly right. Broad conclusion, interestingly wrong. I know which I keep choosing.
Is a baseline blood test really necessary before starting something like this?
Log dose, time and sleep. Ten seconds a day and it turns the anecdote into something you can look at.
Same here.
Nobody has ever been talked out of a stack by a stranger on the internet.
Narrow conclusion.