This happened to me last month and I still don’t totally know what to make of it.
Rodent study. Always a rodent study. I’m not saying that makes it worthless, I’m saying I wish people led with it.
Spent an evening trying to actually read the papers instead of reading about the papers and it was humbling.
If this has already been answered somewhere just point me at it.
No replies yet. Be the first to add one.
Reversed-phase HPLC with UV detection at 214nm is the standard here because the peptide bond absorbs there. If a vendor reports purity without stating the method or wavelength, the number is not comparable to anything.
Happy to walk through how to read one of those reports if it would help. It is less intimidating than it looks once you know which three numbers matter.
saving this. gonna reread when im not half asleep
The figure everyone quotes traces back to a single 2019 paper with n=8. It gets cited as though it were established and it is really not.
The effect size in that study was statistically significant and clinically trivial. Those are not the same finding and the abstract does not make the difference obvious.
BO BoReader Verified ·
The people who get burned are almost never the ones who asked questions first.