Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Dr.NutriCornell said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

One concrete data point for the thread. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Carry on.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…

Pushing back on Dr.RaviCardio here. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.

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