PeptideSynthNJ said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
MASHdoc_SA 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsMASHdoc_SA said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Coming at MASHdoc_SA’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.
Reporting back.
Update — tachyphylaxis to the gastric effect, persistence of the appetite effect. Two curves, and I had been watching the wrong one.