The point of a log is to answer questions in the future that are unanswerable from memory. Which means the test for whether a field is worth recording is simple: in six weeks, would you be able to reconstruct it? If yes, it is optional. If no, it is the whole reason for keeping a log.
The dose record
Four fields, per dose. Everything else is an addition to these.
| Field | Why it matters later |
|---|---|
| Compound | Obvious in the moment; ambiguous across a log with more than one entry type |
| Amount | In the unit the protocol uses, so it can be compared against the protocol |
| Date and time | Establishes intervals and gaps, which memory reconstructs poorly |
| Which vial | Ties the dose to a concentration and an in-use window |
The vial record
Recorded once per vial, and it does the work for every dose drawn from it:
- Vial strength in mg, as printed on the label.
- Diluent volume added, measured rather than estimated.
- Date of first entry, which is what the in-use window is typically counted from.
- Resulting concentration, or simply let it be derived: strength divided by volume.
These four are the ones that are genuinely irrecoverable. Nobody remembers on day nineteen whether it was 2 mL or 3 mL, and the difference changes every dose calculation by 50%.
Subjective observations
Weight, sleep, mood, energy, appetite and free-text notes are all worth logging, with one important caveat about what they can and cannot show.
A log records what happened alongside what. It cannot establish that one caused the other. Weeks vary for a great many reasons at once, and a personal log has no control group and a sample size of one. What it can legitimately do is surface a pattern worth raising with a healthcare professional, who has the context to interpret it.
Consistency beats completeness
A log with four fields filled in reliably every time is more useful than one with twelve fields filled in when there is time. Gaps are not neutral: a subjective score recorded only on notable days produces a record that is systematically biased toward notable days, and any pattern read from it is an artefact of when it was filled in.
Which argues for choosing a small set of fields and holding to them, rather than an ambitious set that degrades.
What makes a log shareable
The moment a log pays off is usually the appointment. What makes it useful there:
- It covers a defined period with no unexplained gaps.
- Amounts are in the units the protocol uses, not converted ad hoc.
- Missed doses are marked as missed rather than absent.
- It can be exported or shown directly, rather than summarised from memory.
That last point is the one that changes the conversation. "I think I have been fairly consistent" and a dated record are not the same input.
Paper, spreadsheet, or app
All three work; they fail differently. Paper is frictionless to write and impossible to analyse. A spreadsheet analyses well but is rarely open at the moment a dose is drawn, so entries drift retrospective. An app is designed for the moment of entry and can derive the arithmetic, at the cost of being a specific tool you have to have. There is a fuller breakdown in peptide tracking app vs spreadsheet.
