Dr.SleepRoch said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Reporting back.
Following up because I said I would. I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking. It resolved, and I cannot prove which half of that did it.
One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. 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.