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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Following on from Dr.SportsMedIN — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
stefan_berlin 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…
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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsstefan_berlin 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…
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
stefan_berlin 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…
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. I will report back once I have actually tried it.