FDA_TrackerJim said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
anders_CPH said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsanders_CPH 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. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Reporting back.
Six weeks on from posting: I stopped reading the weekly number and started reading a four-week average, and the "stall" I opened this thread about was a 1.8kg loss I could not see.