BiostatsBrad said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
BiostatsBrad said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsBiostatsBrad said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.