Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
wendy_avl said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne thing that is still open after wendy_avl’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.