CarlaRPh_TPA said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
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.
pat_auckland said:Weight is a noisy signal — daily variation of one to two kilograms from glycogen, sodium and gut contents — so a fortnight of flat readings is well…
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
CarlaRPh_TPA said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding 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.