anyone else notice baseline labs kicking in around week 7
anyone else notice baseline labs kicking in around week 7. This is a description of what happened to me and not a plan for anybody else.
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.
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.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The confounding problem, stated plainly, because this board keeps stepping on it.
Substantial weight loss moves lipids, liver enzymes, insulin sensitivity markers and several others in its own right. If you are losing weight while taking something, any change in those markers has at least two candidate explanations and you cannot separate them from your own panel.
What you can do is standardise, take a baseline, keep the series long, and be honest in your posts about what is and is not attributable. The threads that say "this compound did X to my eGFR" almost never have the design to support the claim, mine included.
Careful — that is a question for whoever ordered the panel, and nobody in this thread can answer it responsibly.
Compared two draws across two labs and spent a week worrying before finding out the assays were different.
Did anything else change in that window — training, intake, hydration?
[removed by moderator]
Correction: that marker is reported in different units by different labs, which explains the tenfold difference you are seeing.
Agreed on assay changes. A lab switching platforms between your draws is invisible unless you ask.
That is a non-fasting value and the interval you are comparing it against is a fasting one.
weight loss itself moves several of these independently
I would not draw a line through two points, especially when the second was taken at a different time of day.
a single triglycerides outside range is a reason to repeat, not to panic
Have you taken this to whoever ordered it?
Have you taken this to whoever ordered it?
Adding the obvious one — take it to whoever ordered the panel. This board cannot read it for you.
Small fix — a reference interval is not a treatment target, and the post above uses them interchangeably.
Cosigning on baseline. The panel I regret most is the one I did not take before starting.
nothing on this board interprets your results for you
assay method matters, especially between different labs
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.
- 1Did anything else change in that window — training, intake, hydration?12 comments in this branch · started by u/neha_rahimi