jim_asheville said:Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Holding the step for six weeks instead of four did it. Same dose, same food, and the nausea that had felt like a wall turned out to be a timing problem.
One thing that is still open after jim_asheville’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsMikeFit_NJ said:Holding the step for six weeks instead of four did it.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
MikeFit_NJ said:Holding the step for six weeks instead of four did it.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.