LipidDoc_ATL said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
wanda_boise said:Agreed, with a caveat about community reputation: it is a lagging indicator.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Taking it to my next appointment.
LipidDoc_ATL said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. 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.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.