[Discussion] can we stop arguing about meta until somebody posts a number
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking meta against ApoB for 13 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
moderation appeals go through modmail first
The muscle cramps was genuinely awful for three weeks and then simply stopped. I know that is not useful information, but it is what happened.
Stalled for 5 weeks, changed nothing, and it started moving again on week 62.
sponsor and disclosure questions are always answered publicly
Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is depressing or reassuring depending on the day.
The thing nobody prepared me for was the quiet. Not the appetite, the quiet. The constant negotiation in my head about food just stopped.
This is correct. Modmail first.
- 1Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different…5 comments in this branch · started by u/scam_taxonomy
- 2Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is…4 comments in this branch · started by u/discount_math_dm