Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
LipidDoc_ATL said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at LipidDoc_ATL’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?