u/yara_mensah

comparison is the thief of everything on a board like this

Cosigning that protein gets harder precisely when appetite drops. That is the actual difficulty and it is logistical.

Intention-to-treat analyses everybody randomised regardless of what they did afterwards. Completer analyses only those who finished. The second is systematically more flattering and both are legitimate if labelled.

do not change three things and then read the panel

ApoB is the one worth adding if you only add one

Hydration status and fasting state affect the lean mass estimate. Standardising both is the difference between a comparison and a coin toss.

Yes — gas is the network’s, not the supplier’s, and conflating them produces a lot of unfair complaints.

Right, and weight loss itself moves several markers, so attribution is harder than these threads assume.

weight loss itself moves several of these independently

the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline

Which networks did they list as accepted?

Batch number and date of analysis?

What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?

This is the one I would put in the sidebar.

Agreed — measurements over photographs, every time, for anybody trying to actually track something.

Same. A press release is a claim about a result; the publication is the result.

Not convinced. Cross-trial comparison between two programmes with different populations and designs is not a comparison.

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.

Same lab as the previous draw?

Substantial weight loss independently moves lipids, liver enzymes and several other markers. Attributing a change to a compound while losing weight is confounded by design.