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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
One thing that is still open after DeniseRN_TPA’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
BiostatsBrad said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Coming at BiostatsBrad’s question from a different direction. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause. Leaving the original post as written rather than editing it, so the mistake stays visible for whoever searches this next.
jim_asheville said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Agreeing with jim_asheville, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.