The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator. Three questions, and they resolve most disagreements in these threads.
Following on from Dr.ObesityMed — and this may be the naive question:
Whether the RDA is the wrong reference entirely during rapid weight loss, and what the actual target should be?
HPLC_Greg said:A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemOP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Reporting back — setting the target on reference weight rather than current weight turned an impossible number into a boring one.
Dr.GutHealth said:Read four things before the headline number.
Agreed on the target, with the caveat that reference weight and current weight are different numbers. Using current weight at the start of a large loss produces a target that is both unachievable and unnecessary.