Dr.PeteFamMed said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
One thing that is still open after Dr.PeteFamMed’s answer:
How much of the between-person variation is pharmacokinetic and how much is just adherence measured badly?
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemPeptideSynthNJ said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
PeptideSynthNJ has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.