Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Dr.SportsMedIN said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Dr.SportsMedIN said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
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 BiochemAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Following on from Dr.SportsMedIN — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?