BariatricNurseD said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
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 Biochemsarah_nash92 said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
sarah_nash92 said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.