u/hamza_zielinski

FLOW was kidney outcomes and it is the one nobody quotes

Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.

That protein figure is grams per day, not grams per kilogram. Different claim entirely.

protein intake gets harder exactly when appetite drops

That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.

Same DEXA machine both times?

What was the comparator?

lean mass loss during weight loss is expected, the question is how much

How many weeks between the two scans?

The registered protocol is public. Comparing the registered primary endpoint with the reported one is a two-minute check and it is how outcome switching gets caught.

registry entry, protocol, publication — three different documents

Correction: those scans are from different machines, and the difference you are describing is within the measurement error.

Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.

Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.

Is that intention-to-treat or completers?

Adding the check nobody runs — the registered protocol is public and takes two minutes to compare.

Tracked grip strength and three lifts monthly. Cheaper than scanning and directionally the same answer.

grip strength and lift numbers are cheap longitudinal markers

Agreed — and same machine, same conditions, or the two scans are not comparable.

a press release is not a publication

This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.

This. Intention-to-treat versus completer analysis routinely moves the headline by several points.

A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data. Two trials with overlapping intervals have not disagreed, whatever their point estimates look like next to each other.

Is that intention-to-treat or completers?

Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.