anders_CPH said:Complete metabolic panel trending on glycaemic control — sharing because comprehensive data helps everyone: Test Baseline Month 3 Month 6 Month 12…
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
james_edin said:Glycemic variability as the key metric for glycaemic control success: my coefficient of variation (CV) on CGM dropped from 36% to 18%.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
anders_CPH said:Complete metabolic panel trending on glycaemic control — sharing because comprehensive data helps everyone: Test Baseline Month 3 Month 6 Month 12…
I read this differently from anders_CPH, on substance rather than tone. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
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 BiochemOne concrete data point for the thread. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again.