I did the reading. The answers are contradictory, and murky.

Youarewhen said:


Here is the full context incase you forget already. The insinuation is that I’m focusing on the wrong things. How exactly is this a non-sequitur? Cheers!

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Context- There are some piranhas who focus on the wrong things here.

Response-There is nobody who considered the query as worthless.

This is a non sequitur- People can choose to focus on tangential things while disregarding the main premise without claiming that the main thesis is flawed.

Additionally, since nobody mentioned you as being part of the piranha group, that would be a straw man too, if you were to assert that you contributed more to the topic than I did. This is even more relevant considering that the OP himself reiterated that there were people focusing on what they considered 'inflammatory' portions of the original post.

In conclusion, you inserted yourself as an aggrieved party, where nobody said you were part of the piranha crowd or that you didn't contribute enough? You mentioned insinuations. That could be the issue. Insinuations, innuendoes, etc., are assumptions for the most part. And we all know who assumption's the mother of. [Under Siege 2 reference]

In fact, I went back and rechecked your responses. You're among those who did give valid responses so I really don't know what made you feel I was insinuating that you were trolling.
 
0cd191922bf4b9931482112427c490995a4d7424cb083c425d0b2156986af152.gif


CNCCurrency said:


Full of yourself much?

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
jason370 said:


I have max subscriptions to GPT Claude and Cursor, those are the main three i use, and I use them against each other as well. I force each to check each others work, check for drift, efficiency, etc. I wouldn't say I failed with them, I would say they are frustrating to use because they are consistently inconsistent. Todays information can be the exact opposite tomorrow, and they are clever about how they change information with sleight of hand, hallucinations, and flat out lying.

Of course I account for all of this, I just find it particularly annoying when dealing with a non -human. Yes they are 50X better than a junior programmer, or a team of junior programmers for that matter and they are certainly more cost effective. I find myself still doing quite a bit of the coding despite their presence, because I have to check code regardless and when i do it, it is near perfect, no ulterior motives.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There lies the problem. You are relying on AI. Fire them all. You are the Rat. Become your own AI. Not really that difficult.

Base of stack for most is the GLP. Once managed properly you can slowly add other pepetides to optimize your health. I fixed my Mitochondria and shoulder injuries for the next six months. You shouldn't even be looking at Tesa/ IPA until you have hit your goal weight. I have not used AI one time for my rebuild. I just read and read more then I aggregated all of the data I absorbed from users and published trials and made an informed decision for me. Get your bloodwork done every 90 days and that will be a great guide for tweaking protocols. Also higher doses often don't lead to greater success regardless of the pep.
 
Meritocrat said:


Context- There are some piranhas who focus on the wrong things here.

Response-There is nobody who considered the query as worthless.

This is a non sequitur- People can choose to focus on tangential things while disregarding the main premise without claiming that the main thesis is flawed.

Additionally, since nobody mentioned you as being part of the piranha group, that would be a straw man too, if you were to assert that you contributed more to the topic than I did. This is even more relevant considering that the OP himself reiterated that there were people focusing on what they considered 'inflammatory' portions of the original post.

In conclusion, you inserted yourself as an aggrieved party, where nobody said you were part of the piranha crowd or that you didn't contribute enough? You mentioned insinuations. That could be the issue. Insinuations, innuendoes, etc., are assumptions for the most part. And we all know who assumption's the mother of. [Under Siege 2 reference]

In fact, I went back and rechecked your responses. You're among those who did give valid responses so I really don't know what made you feel I was insinuating that you were trolling.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thoughtful reply Meritocrat. I did insert myself because your original reply added nothing to the conversation and was basically just cheerleading for OP while potentially attacking people who did contribute something.
 
jason370 said:


I have max subscriptions to GPT Claude and Cursor, those are the main three i use, and I use them against each other as well. I force each to check each others work, check for drift, efficiency, etc. I wouldn't say I failed with them, I would say they are frustrating to use because they are consistently inconsistent. Todays information can be the exact opposite tomorrow, and they are clever about how they change information with sleight of hand, hallucinations, and flat out lying.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...

chewonmysac said:


There lies the problem. You are relying on AI. Fire them all. You are the Rat. Become your own AI. Not really that difficult.

Base of stack for most is the GLP. Once managed properly you can slowly add other pepetides to optimize your health. I fixed my Mitochondria and shoulder injuries for the next six months. You shouldn't even be looking at Tesa/ IPA until you have hit your goal weight. I have not used AI one time for my rebuild. I just read and read more then I aggregated all of the data I absorbed from users and published trials and made an informed decision for me. Get your bloodwork done every 90 days and that will be a great guide for tweaking protocols. Also higher doses often don't lead to greater success regardless of the pep.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm actually not "relying" on anything, and as I have mentioned more than once i am in fact my own lab rat (with a high risk tolerance). I've used AI and I use AI for various research and coding projects, and also as I've stated, i greatly dislike it. In fact the entire crux of this post is that AI has been a failure for stack building pi=urposes, and I'm leaning on the general population for better alternatives.
 
jason370 said:


There's always a way. It might not be exact, or perfection but there's always noise which can be reduced, variables which can be minimized or even eliminated altogether, a clearer and cleaner path towards the destination; that is essentially what I'm looking for. Any noise reduction tool which works would be immensely helpful. I generally hate anecdotal evidence, as is is very often subjective, unreliable, and unreproducible, but I must say I am so impressed by the compelling anecdotal testimonies here, that i simply cannot ignore them.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
For 30 years, it has been known that testing hypotheses based on a normal distribution and a 95% confidence interval is insufficient. A 99% confidence level is impossible to achieve using experimental methods.

Bayesian probabilities have been used to some extent but have not really caught on in the scientific community.

It has been estimated that only 30% of published experiments in cancer research are reproducible. Nature, other journals, and institutions have joined forces to secure funding and reproduce the experiments. Without much success.

I regularly consult the Cochrane Library. Typical meta-analyses range from “not enough results” to “out of 482 studies, we selected 5 as valid, 4 of which were by the same author” (I can’t remember if it was on pregnenolone, melatonin, or something like that).

If you've only ever studied math, this creates cognitive dissonance for you (if it's any consolation, you're not the first mathematician I've met in this situation).

I recommend that you explore epistemology, starting with Thomas Kuhn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

and to continue with Popper, Bachelard, Habermas, and Feyerabend.

At some point, you will realize that it is your view of science that limits you, not the way science is actually done.

The word bio-logy contains the Greek word logos; this science has no other claim than to discuss what we understand about living things. Even the definition of “life” remains unsatisfactory.
 
you got me

eidos said:


For 30 years, it has been known that testing hypotheses based on a normal distribution and a 95% confidence interval is insufficient. A 99% confidence level is impossible to achieve using experimental methods.

Bayesian probabilities have been used to some extent but have not really caught on in the scientific community.

It has been estimated that only 30% of published experiments in cancer research are reproducible. Nature, other journals, and institutions have joined forces to secure funding and reproduce the experiments. Without much success.

I regularly consult the Cochrane Library. Typical meta-analyses range from “not enough results” to “out of 482 studies, we selected 5 as valid, 4 of which were by the same author” (I can’t remember if it was on pregnenolone, melatonin, or something like that).

If you've only ever studied math, this creates cognitive dissonance for you (if it's any consolation, you're not the first mathematician I've met in this situation).

I recommend that you explore epistemology, starting with Thomas Kuhn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

and to continue with Popper, Bachelard, Habermas, and Feyerabend.

At some point, you will realize that it is your view of science that limits you, not the way science is actually done.

The word bio-logy contains the Greek word logos; this science has no other claim than to discuss what we understand about living things. Even the definition of “life” remains unsatisfactory.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
you got me there. i approach the world through a math lens (mostly), regardless of the arena i'm in. you make good points, which i tend to agree with however, I can tell you that my approach has had amazing success over the span of decades. I already understand i'm looking to force a square peg into a round hole to a certain extent, but my goal is not perfection, but rather progress. I almost always make progress through this methodology, and often enough significant progress. My goal is not to create the perfect stack building tool from the get go, it is to create the architecture where something of the sort becomes possible. Currently i have anarchy.
 
chewonmysac said:


. You shouldn't even be looking at Tesa/ IPA until you have hit your goal weight.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Really? But I thought Tesa and IPA are strong for muscle preservation and Tesa for targeting visceral fat?

chewonmysac said:


. Get your bloodwork done every 90 days and that will be a great guide for tweaking protocols. Also higher doses often don't lead to greater success regardless of the pep.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
simple and smart. Solid advice.

I’m curious who are you using for labs? I recently decided I’m going to run labs pretty regular 90 days sounds reasonable.
 
Justatechdude said:


Really? But I thought Tesa and IPA are strong for muscle preservation and Tesa for targeting visceral fat?

simple and smart. Solid advice.

I’m curious who are you using for labs? I recently decided I’m going to run labs pretty regular 90 days sounds reasonable.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Same here, I'd love to know. 90-day labs are kind of expensive.
 
Justatechdude said:


Really? But I thought Tesa and IPA are strong for muscle preservation and Tesa for targeting visceral fat?

simple and smart. Solid advice.

I’m curious who are you using for labs? I recently decided I’m going to run labs pretty regular 90 days sounds reasonable.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ultalabs order and schedule on line. Then goto a Quest. 48hr turn around for basics longer on IGF and Test panels.
 
Our bodies are different, so what works well for one might not work at all for another. Take DSIP as an example. Some (like me) love it, while others say it was utter garbage.

Some are hyper responders to GLPs and some can handle (and need) higher starting doses while tirtrating fast without feeling ill.

I think genes have a lot to do with it, so genetic testing might be the best approach to know what works for each person. Someone posted a video recently by Ryan Humiston about that.

It reminds me of how folic acid isn't processed the same for those with the MTHFR gene variant or how oxycodon isn't metabolized well if you have a mutation in CYP2D6 enzyme.
 
This is a pretty Interesting post in general just reading through and actually a problem I’m working on. For about 4-5 weeks at this point I’ve been working on an app after work that helps you build protocols. it does a few things but some key features are finding redundancies and allowing you to actually have trackable data points. Be it biomarkers in blood work or how much REM or deep sleep you are getting the whole point is to have quantifiable data and be able to track EVERYTHING. Also you can educate yourself on everything be it anabolics peptides SSRIs whatever if the drug is in a database or a med journal it is in the program. but where it might fall short in your case is I don’t want to be legally liable for anyone so there is no suggestions or anything that would be suggesting medical care so I’ve had to be careful with keeping everything data driven be it animal human or cell cultures all data is direct from a study from a verifiable source. the app won’t tell you how to build a protocol but there are all the tools there and education to help tailor your own protocol. Eventually I will reach out to our lord mr zippy ans see if I am allowed to make a post about it on here but as it stands I don’t want to put out a half finished app. The whole reason the app even exists is because of this forum and a differnt project I’m working on needed software to work behind the scenes and said software has been consuming my life recently lol. Also sorry for the lack of punctuation for anyone reading this I hope you dont have a stroke trying to read this.
 
jason370 said:


Does anyone have what they believe to be one solid source of truth resource for how to thoughtfully build a peptide stack? Preferably one which considers the metabolic lanes, so one doesn't overcrowd any given lane?

(I apologize in advance for the lack of humility. I simply wish to paint a picture that even the most qualified among us struggle to find clarity in this crazy world of peptides)

I am a data scientist. I'm a highly skilled researcher. I run risk management via quantitative analysis for the top 100 hedge funds in the world, and i regularly tell the smartest MIT educated PHd. mathematicians how and why they are wrong about their math, research, and work approach, in front of their bosses - that's what i do all day. The smartest and most successful (those two things do not necessarily go together) people on Wall st refer to guys like me as the really smart guys.

And yet still...

I have no clear answers on what or how to stack peptides in any manner which gives me real confidence. Yes i have a ton of information, yes I've read it all. I've referred to:

Every A.I.

The entirety of the internet

This forum

Peppys

STG

Myriad TG and Discord groups

My Endocrinologist

My GP

My friends who are doctors

My friends who just use a ton of peptides

I've posted a lot in the last couple months

I built a peptide tacker management tool/app as well

And more.

For example:

My best understanding is there are four metabolic lanes for peptide use. I wonder how many people even know this most fundamentally important piece of information. Since there are four lanes, if one wishes to address concerns/issues/interests in said lanes, it is my best understanding one should only use one peptide per lane (per day, if it is a daily usage pep? this part becomes unclear to me).

Reta/Cagri: do they occupy the same lane? are they different lanes? if same then what protocol would ensure the best results? No need to directly answer this scenario, it is an example of a more complicated protocol to figure out>

Tesa/CJC-IPA: similar situation, except these are daily pins occupying the same lane. Should one alternate tesa MWF and CP10 TuTh Sat? Would that be the ideal solution or is this combination simply a bad idea.

Klow in am, Wolverine at night: seems redundant in some ways, but if you have a specific injury perhaps one might want to c=double up a bit to address that. It's complicated.

These scenarios are endless, yet perhaps a lane tool could be build, or perhaps it exists already, which might help narrow down these decisions, rather than just relying on 31 posts that describe unique scenrios.

I'm all but certain I speak for many (maybe most) here. I've been running my stack for a few months, it's going well, i feel great but I also know I'm just experimenting here. I happen to have an extremely high risk tolerance so I don't exactly mind, but It's bothering me that there is no reliable source of truth for something which seems quite straightforward.

Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There is vast difference in quality in the information sources you are listing, and AI responses to medical type questions vary tremendously on prompting,. Default options will usually prefer coherent stories over scientific accuracy and agreement with the questioner, and if more text on the internet is in reddit forums than in scientific papers, more of the AI answers will derive from the text from reddit, unless careful prompting is used.

The obvious issue is you are trying to find high certainty information, in an area where a lot of it is just made up marketing crap, and where the science that could provide that certainty does not exist, for the vast majority of popular peptides with the exception of GLP's.

I do not believe anecdotal evidence online of miraculous cures by products like KLOW or GLOW are evidence that they work. It is interesting, but there are many different reasons why this could happen, and those anecdotal experiences are true, even if the drugs do nothing.

The sole source of high certainty information is the original scientific research papers. An AI prompted to give answers consistent with that of a careful researcher is going to say that using peptides either not studied in humans or poorly studied in humans is intrinsically unsafe, and extrapolating from animal research is not a valid basis for human therapies. I think the lack of medical research reading is an issue here, it is different and has different sets of rules and priorities to many other scientific areas, and developing the skill to understand and distinguish between research that is interesting or suggestive versus definitive is genuinely hard and takes time and experience.

The only valid and definitely reliable evidence to support a particular peptide combination is a prospective controlled clinical trial of that combination in humans, and this information does not exist ( maybe cagrisema ).

What exists at best for most peptides is usually small human trials in limited specific populations, which may or may not apply to people outside of those specific groups. So for tesamorelin for example there are several smallish human trials saying it was useful for lipodystrophy in HIV patients. And in general , that is all that can be said to be proven. It does not prove it is safe or effective in the general population or other specific groups. It is not totally unreasonable to extrapolate from that known information that it has a reasonable chance of doing the same thing in other populations, and that given there were no major adverse effects that were unexpected in that group that this might be the case in a more general population. For a medication to be approved for human use, it needs that level of proof of safety and efficacy, so it is approved to treat HIV patients with lipodystrophy but nothing else. The logic applied to establishing drug safety and effectiveness is a complex evolved system, where other science logics are not necessarily the same.

You state you have high risk tolerance, and to use those peptides that is required, as the evidence and especially evidence that is certain or reliable is very sparse. And for the majority of the available peptides there are no human trials. Trying to extract high certainty data out of low certainty information, such as online posts is effectively not possible.
 
Back
Top