Dr.LipidDallas said:

The glucagon component looks paradoxical and is not.

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.

DeniseRN_TPA said:

It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.

I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part.