raj_cambridge 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…
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
Worth separating that from liver and MASH, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
raj_cambridge 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…
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 liver and MASH, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
raj_cambridge 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…
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
Dr.SportsMedIN said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.