One thing that is still open after anna.melb_AU’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
greg_boulder said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Pushing back on greg_boulder here. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
greg_boulder said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Worth separating that from training through weight loss, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsgreg_boulder said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
Worth separating that from training through weight loss, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Happy to go further on any of that.