Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. 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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
sean_dublin said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Coming at sean_dublin’s question from a different direction. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after sean_dublin’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
PharmacoVig_BOS said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.