Dr.ObesityLA said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
Following on from Dr.ObesityLA — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochembri_stats said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Pushing back on bri_stats here. 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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Reporting back.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.