NurseLeah_Nash said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. 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.
Following on from NurseLeah_Nash — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.PathRoch said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
Dr.PathRoch said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
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.