One concrete data point for the thread. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
One thing that is still open after Dr.EndoIndy’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
TirzTom said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
I read this differently from TirzTom, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 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 BiochemTirzTom said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
TirzTom said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.