TirzTom said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.

EndoResFellow said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

EndoResFellow said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.

One concrete data point for the thread. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.