DebRD_ATL said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
DebRD_ATL said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Coming at DebRD_ATL’s question from a different direction. There is also a quality change that the scan cannot see. Weight loss shifts fiber-type distribution toward Type I and improves mitochondrial density and insulin-stimulated glucose uptake per fiber — so the muscle you keep is metabolically better even though there is less of it. That does not make the loss irrelevant, but it explains why function often holds up better than the number suggests.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from DebRD_ATL — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Dr.RaviCardio said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Pushing back on Dr.RaviCardio here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.