Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Dr.BariatricHTX said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Worth separating that from the lipid panel, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?