PeptideChemSF said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
BenResearch_OR said:The absorption variability is real, but it partly averages out over weeks — the steady-state trough is less erratic than any single day would suggest.
That reframing is the part I needed. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
PeptideChemSF said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.