BiostatsBrad said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
BiostatsBrad said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.
BiostatsBrad said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
rachel_ABQ said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Posting only so the count is not one.