dan_philly said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
dan_philly said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. 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.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsReporting back.
Follow-up: it was dead space. Switching to a low-dead-space fixed-needle syringe gave me the tenth dose back.
KevinCompounds said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Coming at KevinCompounds’s question from a different direction. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.