maria_elpaso said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
Worth separating that from the pharmacology, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.EM_Chicago said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
Dr.EM_Chicago said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.