TomFromTexas said:True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
TomFromTexas said:True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
One concrete data point for the thread. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne thing that is still open after TomFromTexas’s answer:
Whether an unchanged LDL-C alongside a large triglyceride fall is a good result or a bad one, because ApoB and LDL-C seem to be telling different stories?
quinn_sf said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
I read this differently from quinn_sf, on substance rather than tone. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
Happy to go further on any of that.