A1cHero_PHX said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.
A1cHero_PHX said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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 retelling.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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 same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
anders_CPH 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…
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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.