One 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Following on from GenomicsKate — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Dr.PulmRoch said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClosing the loop on my own question.
Rolling average over five weeks showed I had lost 1.6kg during my "plateau". The scale was noise and the tape had moved. I changed nothing and it resumed.
PedsEndoPhilly said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.