week 31 check-in — 11kg down, sulphur burps manageable, one thing confusing me
week 31 check-in — 11kg down, sulphur burps manageable, one thing confusing me, logged the same way every week so the comparison is at least internally fair.
The relevant figures are week 31 and 11kg, and they come from the same log I have kept the whole time.
Nobody here can interpret your panel and this comment is not doing so. What a board can usefully do is help you ask better questions of somebody who can.
My TSH moved and I spent a fortnight convinced I knew why. The repeat six weeks later was back in range and I had changed nothing.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Why so many single values look alarming and turn out to be nothing.
A reference interval is built to contain about 95% of a healthy reference population, so one test in twenty falls outside one by construction. Add biological variation, assay imprecision, fasting state and time of day, and a genuinely stable person will produce occasional out-of-range results.
That is why repeat testing before acting is standard. Regression to the mean handles most of it. None of which means an out-of-range value should be ignored — it means it should be repeated and taken to somebody who can put it in context, which is emphatically not a ranked feed.
Repeat testing before acting is standard practice for a reason: regression to the mean does a lot of work on single outlying values.
ApoB counts atherogenic particles rather than the cholesterol they carry, which is why it can diverge from LDL-C and why it is the addition most worth making.
Yes — same lab, same fasting state, same rough time of day, or the comparison is doing nothing.
Added ApoB to the panel after a thread here. It told me something the standard lipid panel had been hiding.
same lab, same conditions, or you are comparing noise
Brought the whole set to my clinician rather than one flagged value. Completely different conversation.
How many weeks between the two measurements?
Yes. Repeat before you react. Almost every alarming single value I have posted here regressed on the repeat.
Reference intervals are typically the central 95% of a reference population. By construction one person in twenty falls outside one on any given test without anything being wrong.
fasting state and time of day change more than people expect
Tracked fasting insulin against the weight trend for a year. The correlation was much weaker than I expected and that was worth knowing.
How to make a panel worth comparing, which is most of the value people leave on the table.
Standardise the conditions: same lab, same fasting state, same rough time of day, same point in the week, similar hydration. Take a baseline before you change anything. Repeat any surprising value before acting on it. Change one thing at a time if you want to attribute anything to it.
Do that and a year of panels is a trend. Skip it and a year of panels is a collection of unrelated mornings, which is what most of the alarmed posts here are actually describing.
draw at the same point in the week if you want comparability
one measurement is a point, two is a line, three is a trend
Same view — ApoB if you add one thing. It answers a question the standard panel only gestures at.
Cosigning on baseline. The panel I regret most is the one I did not take before starting.
Panicked about a single result, posted here, got told to repeat it, repeated it, and it was fine.
do not change three things and then read the panel
Small fix — a reference interval is not a treatment target, and the post above uses them interchangeably.
Small fix — a reference interval is not a treatment target, and the post above uses them interchangeably.
Adding the obvious one — take it to whoever ordered the panel. This board cannot read it for you.
That comparison crosses two labs with different assays. The difference you are describing may be the method.
This. Reference ranges are population intervals, not targets, and conflating them causes a lot of unnecessary alarm here.
Draw at the same point in the week now, fasting, same lab. The noise dropped enormously once I standardised.
Right, and weight loss itself moves several markers, so attribution is harder than these threads assume.
Same lab as the previous draw?
ApoB is the one worth adding if you only add one
hydration status moves a surprising number of markers
- 1How many weeks between the two measurements?10 comments in this branch · started by u/janek_ferrari
- 2That comparison crosses two labs with different assays. The difference you…7 comments in this branch · started by u/cormac_erdogan