sophie_paris said:

Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…

sophie_paris has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

InsuranceTom said:

True, and anyone with reduced kidney function needs that target set by a clinician rather than a forum.

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

sophie_paris said:

Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…

Pushing back on sophie_paris here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.

One concrete data point for the thread. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.

Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.