[Question] New Zealand — has anyone got a straight answer on normal
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: basics matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 4 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 17 people measuring the same thing the same way. I have started; my numbers are below. They lean one way but not strongly enough for me to declare victory.
If you have data, post the data. If you have an opinion, flair it as an opinion.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Mechanistically the bit that matters is what is. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
This is a good question, genuinely.
[deleted]
link the wiki instead of retyping, but politely
rudeness is removed faster than bad questions
Yeah, that is totally normal for week 20.
the first time question is not dumb
be kind, condescending answers are removed
rudeness is removed faster than bad questions
Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
Mechanistically the bit that matters is what is. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
link the wiki instead of retyping, but politely
The beginner question took me three weeks to understand. Wiki explained it eventually.
is this normal week 16 — yes, probably
the week one question is not dumb
Strongly agree. No question is dumb here.
no dose recommendations for individuals, even here
- 1Mechanistically the bit that matters is what is. It explains most of the…11 comments in this branch · started by u/fabio_nkemelu
- 2Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.8 comments in this branch · started by u/fasting_insulin_f