Descriptive, not prescriptive. I want to map how published Epithalon studies structured their cycles — purely as a record of what the literature describes, with citations, not as a template for anyone.
If you contribute, please cite the study and note the model. I'd like this to be the thread someone can point to that says "here's what's actually been published," cleanly separated from the internet's embellishments.
Appreciate the descriptive-not-prescriptive framing up front. Contributing one citation with the study model noted, recorded purely as "this is what the paper did," not a template for anyone.
This is the correct way to handle cycle literature: cite the study, state the model, resist turning a description into a recommendation. We'll happily reference a thread kept this clean.
Want to join the discussion?
Log in to reply