PeptideChemSF said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.

PeptideChemSF said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Dr.SportsMedIN said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Dr.SportsMedIN said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.