Dr.SleepRoch said:

The glucagon component looks paradoxical and is not.

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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 retelling.

Happy to go further on any of that.

Dr.EndoIndy said:

Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then…

I read this differently from Dr.EndoIndy, on substance rather than tone. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. No action needed from anybody.