PeptideChemSF said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
Coming at PeptideChemSF’s question from a different direction. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How much of the between-person variation is pharmacokinetic and how much is just adherence measured badly?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsTrialTracker_MD said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Pushing back on TrialTracker_MD here. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
TrialTracker_MD said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
Worth separating that from glycaemic control, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.