KevinCompounds said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
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.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsquinn_sf 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.
quinn_sf said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
Worth separating that from the lipid panel, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.