sophie_paris said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
sophie_paris said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from sophie_paris — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
Closing the loop on my own question.
Follow-up — I put something in the gap where food used to be rather than waiting for the gap to close on its own. That was the part nobody told me.