DataDave said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
DataDave said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
DataDave said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
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 BiochemAdding 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.ObesityLA said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.