JenPlateau said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
Following on from JenPlateau — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsTrialTracker_MD said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
TrialTracker_MD said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.