emma_london said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.
Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.SleepRoch 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.
Dr.SleepRoch said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Coming at Dr.SleepRoch’s question from a different direction. 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.