PharmD_Rodriguez said:The RDA is the wrong reference and it is worth understanding why.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
PharmD_Rodriguez said:The RDA is the wrong reference and it is worth understanding why.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
PharmHunterJen said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.