hank_denver said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Taking it to my next appointment.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
VanRx_Mike said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsVanRx_Mike said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
One concrete data point for the thread. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.