Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
PeptideChemSF said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Second this. Posting only so the count is not one.
PeptideChemSF said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Coming at PeptideChemSF’s question from a different direction. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
Worth separating that from liver and MASH, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.