VanRx_Mike said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.

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

MikeNYC_runner said:

The absorption variability is real, but it partly averages out over weeks — the steady-state trough is less erratic than any single day would suggest.

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

VanRx_Mike said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

I read this differently from VanRx_Mike, on substance rather than tone. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. No action needed from anybody.