From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
DoseLogDan said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.ObesityMed 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.
Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. No action needed from anybody.