BethLabQueen said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
BethLabQueen said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
BethLabQueen said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
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. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Worth separating that from glycaemic control, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
paige_pharma said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.