SleepDoc_PDX said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
One thing that is still open after SleepDoc_PDX’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 ResultsNicoleRaleigh said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
I read this differently from NicoleRaleigh, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
Worth separating that from cross-border ordering, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Reporting back.
Following up because I said I would. I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking. It resolved, and I cannot prove which half of that did it.