Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Worth separating that from micronutrient cover, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Dr.ReproEndo said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Second this. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Dr.ReproEndo said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Coming at Dr.ReproEndo’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.