Does Size Matter? Big Puck vs Little Puck - Lab Results Are In
-
Just published a new article testing something we've all wondered about: do those tiny, sad-looking lyophilized pucks actually contain less peptide than the big, impressive ones?
The Setup:
Nexaph had a batch of N-Acetyl Selank/Semax blend where some vials had normal-looking pucks and others had these tiny residue-looking pucks. Instead of just trusting eyeballs or vendor claims, I sent duplicate samples of each type to Analytical Formulations for quantitative testing.The Results:
Plot twist - both passed. The "little puck" samples tested fine for Semax content, Selank content, and purity. One of the little puck samples even hit 99.6% purity - the highest in the comparison.The Takeaway:
Puck size, shape, and appearance are not reliable substitutes for analytical testing. A broken or shrunken cake doesn't automatically mean failed content. This doesn't mean every ugly puck is good - severe meltback, wet material, discoloration, or broken seals are still red flags. But comfort isn't chemistry.Full article with lab reports: https://peptidecritic.com/blog/does-size-matter-big-puck-vs-little-puck-lyophilized-vial
What's your experience been with puck appearance versus actual testing results?
-
It would be nice to see more pictures of "those tiny, sad-looking lyophilized pucks" that are still good vs. really bad pucks.
@vpeptides first image. Its literally residue.
-
Nexaph pulls through AGAIN!
Since discovering them I've bought all my peps from them. -
Great work thanks
-
Hello Mr. @randy,
There’s a lot of negative discourse surrounding AFI. I’ve heard people even claim the lab is in someone’s garage. What makes you confident in the results they provide you in these tests?
I’m looking for a domestic lab and I’m leaning towards Freedom but would like to hear your thoughts on AFI.
Thanks!
-
Just published a new article testing something we've all wondered about: do those tiny, sad-looking lyophilized pucks actually contain less peptide than the big, impressive ones?
The Setup:
Nexaph had a batch of N-Acetyl Selank/Semax blend where some vials had normal-looking pucks and others had these tiny residue-looking pucks. Instead of just trusting eyeballs or vendor claims, I sent duplicate samples of each type to Analytical Formulations for quantitative testing.The Results:
Plot twist - both passed. The "little puck" samples tested fine for Semax content, Selank content, and purity. One of the little puck samples even hit 99.6% purity - the highest in the comparison.The Takeaway:
Puck size, shape, and appearance are not reliable substitutes for analytical testing. A broken or shrunken cake doesn't automatically mean failed content. This doesn't mean every ugly puck is good - severe meltback, wet material, discoloration, or broken seals are still red flags. But comfort isn't chemistry.Full article with lab reports: https://peptidecritic.com/blog/does-size-matter-big-puck-vs-little-puck-lyophilized-vial
What's your experience been with puck appearance versus actual testing results?
-
Hello Mr. @randy,
There’s a lot of negative discourse surrounding AFI. I’ve heard people even claim the lab is in someone’s garage. What makes you confident in the results they provide you in these tests?
I’m looking for a domestic lab and I’m leaning towards Freedom but would like to hear your thoughts on AFI.
Thanks!
@Estarossa19 Freedom is great, and so is TrustPointe and dont sleep on vangard.
I use AFI a lot because John Dunlop is a personal friend and I’ve had consistent results from him over the years. He takes the time to explain the methodology, the limitations, and the weird edge cases when something doesn’t look straightforward. He is also much smarter than me, which helps.
When I’ve tested samples side by side with AFI and other labs, his results have been in range with what the other labs reported. If you look through our other articles, you’ll see we do use other labs on occasion, and sometimes alongside AFI.
A lot of the negative discourse around AFI is basically “a guy heard from a guy” or “someone saw a post about a sample getting flubbed.” Every lab has baggage if you dig long enough. Jano has had issues. TrustPointe has had issues. Freedom has had issues. No lab is perfect..and it's not a garage. You should see the recent "lab" tour of janoshik by the owner of k-hole. Makes you think twice before shipping to europe.
The difference for me is that I can overnight John a vial, ask him questions directly, and get a real explanation instead of vendor-facing fluff. He’s been doing this since 2008, he’s been consistent for me, and he can bench more than me, so I usually use AFI.
"If it doesnt come in a needle. It doesn't work"
-
@Estarossa19 Freedom is great, and so is TrustPointe and dont sleep on vangard.
I use AFI a lot because John Dunlop is a personal friend and I’ve had consistent results from him over the years. He takes the time to explain the methodology, the limitations, and the weird edge cases when something doesn’t look straightforward. He is also much smarter than me, which helps.
When I’ve tested samples side by side with AFI and other labs, his results have been in range with what the other labs reported. If you look through our other articles, you’ll see we do use other labs on occasion, and sometimes alongside AFI.
A lot of the negative discourse around AFI is basically “a guy heard from a guy” or “someone saw a post about a sample getting flubbed.” Every lab has baggage if you dig long enough. Jano has had issues. TrustPointe has had issues. Freedom has had issues. No lab is perfect..and it's not a garage. You should see the recent "lab" tour of janoshik by the owner of k-hole. Makes you think twice before shipping to europe.
The difference for me is that I can overnight John a vial, ask him questions directly, and get a real explanation instead of vendor-facing fluff. He’s been doing this since 2008, he’s been consistent for me, and he can bench more than me, so I usually use AFI.
@Randy Thanks for your response!
Taking a look at the K-hole stuff you mentioned, and I saw a video of Jano discussing his way of testing Eloralintide and... It seems like a total guess. Crazy stuff
-
LOL talk about on the ground journalism. Appreciate all that you do, Randy.
-
Just to play devil’s advocate…
While I completely understand your view, consider the other side of the equation. Would you have felt better about the facts, and the opinions, if delivered by a middle aged doctor, wearing a lab coat, and spoke with a more fluent, seemly polished European accent?
The thing I appreciate about his interview was that he didn’t seem to use sugarcoated sales tactics and over the top scientific terminology, he just put it out there. Yes, there will be some who can debate his views with the “better safe than sorry” hammer, but I think that most of his views would be hard to debate.
Also, he’s been in this ecosystem since he’s a teenager. I also was expecting a distinguished looking doctor who probably pull up in his luxury sedan. Instead, we got a guy that looks like a pro tennis player, confident, bordering on arrogant; who probably pulled up in a Ferrari. All that said, the message and experience, are more valid than appearance and delivery, IMO.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login