Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
james_edin said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. Nothing to add that would improve it.
james_edin said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemOne concrete data point for the thread. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
One thing that is still open after james_edin’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?