The problem with glycine discussion is that the anecdote and the mechanism get merged. Here is my attempt to keep them apart.
Most of the popular protocols are borrowed from clinical populations and applied to healthy people without comment.
What surprised me is how much of the perceived benefit was routine and attention rather than pharmacology.
I would rather have a narrow conclusion and be right than a broad one and be interesting.
How do you separate the compound effect from the routine around it?
Most of the popular protocol is borrowed from a clinical population and applied to healthy people without comment.
Name the active ingredient, not just the brand. It makes these threads searchable years later. Not on glycine but the pattern is familiar.
Is a baseline blood test really necessary before starting something like this?
A certificate of analysis answers one question and gets quoted as though it answers four.