LipidDoc_ATL said: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…
Coming at LipidDoc_ATL’s question from a different direction. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Following on from LipidDoc_ATL — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsVendorMark said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Pushing back on VendorMark here. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
VendorMark said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.