Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
FDA_TrackerJim said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
FDA_TrackerJim said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
Dr.CardioMD said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.