EndoResFellow said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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 same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFDA_TrackerJim 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…
Pushing back on FDA_TrackerJim 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.
Worth separating that from training through weight loss, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
FDA_TrackerJim 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…
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.