Following on from andrew_nyc — and this may be the naive question:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

quinn_sf said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.

Worth separating that from tirzepatide, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

Happy to go further on any of that.

quinn_sf said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.

quinn_sf said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Worth separating that from tirzepatide, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.