BiostatsBrad said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
BiostatsBrad said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
BiostatsBrad said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
That reframing is the part I needed. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Worth separating that from cardiovascular outcomes, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Dr.NutriCornell said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Second this. Nothing to add that would improve it.