High-protein snacks under 200 calories — my results so far

lisa_labSD said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

Coming at lisa_labSD’s question from a different direction. 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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.

Happy to go further on any of that.

Following on from lisa_labSD — and this may be the naive question:

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

VendorMark said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.

VendorMark said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.