hank_denver said: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…
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
hank_denver said: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…
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Dr.RheumBOS said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.