PeptideChemSF said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
One thing that is still open after PeptideChemSF’s answer:
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 ResultsDoseLogDan said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
DoseLogDan said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
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.