Meta-level question: how do you evaluate evidence for selenium when the human data is thin and most trials are small? Sample size, blinding, and who paid for it. Those three questions kill most of the confidence in most of these threads.
Baseline first.
Stupid question: how do you know whether what is in the vial matches the label at all?
Narrow conclusion. Six weeks in on selenium and it lines up.
This is the kind of post the forum exists for.
Nobody has ever been talked out of a stack by a stranger on the internet. Six weeks in on selenium and it lines up.
Read the methods section. It is the only part that says whether the conclusion is allowed to exist. Stomach upset was my main issue with selenium too.
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero?
Test one thing at a time. It feels slower and it is the only way to learn anything.
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero? How long have you been on selenium?
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?
Cold storage, light protection, date on the vial. Boring, removes half the variables.
Cold storage, light protection, date on the vial. Boring, removes half the variables.
Nobody has ever been talked out of a stack by a stranger on the internet.