Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
josh_phd_bmore said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
josh_phd_bmore said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.