One concrete data point for the thread. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
One thing that is still open after VanRx_Mike’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
DataDave said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDataDave said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
DataDave said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.