CarlaRPh_TPA said:My labs after 9 months on glycaemic control: A1C 5.9%, fasting glucose 89 mg/dL, fasting insulin 4 uIU/mL.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
amsterdam_pete said:Insulin sensitivity test (HOMA-IR) on glycaemic control — arguably the most important metabolic marker most people aren't tracking: HOMA-IR = (fasting…
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
CarlaRPh_TPA said:My labs after 9 months on glycaemic control: A1C 5.9%, fasting glucose 89 mg/dL, fasting insulin 4 uIU/mL.
I read this differently from CarlaRPh_TPA, on substance rather than tone. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.