Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
LindaRN_retired said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Posting only so the count is not one.
LindaRN_retired said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Coming at LindaRN_retired’s question from a different direction. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?