Dr.NateNeph said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
matt_MKE said:The glucagon component looks paradoxical and is not.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
Dr.NateNeph said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.