Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Dr.KarenChen said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Second this. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.KarenChen said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Coming at Dr.KarenChen’s question from a different direction. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.