MASHdoc_SA said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
One thing that is still open after MASHdoc_SA’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsquinn_sf said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
I read this differently from quinn_sf, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
quinn_sf said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.