unpopular opinion: units is massively overrated
Right, the reconstitution question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 22 data points over 8 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 24, not week 73. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
more water means more units for the same dose, which means finer resolution
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
Dead space ate 10 units on a low-volume draw. Tiny impact at 7.5mg, massive impact at 5mg.
Not to be pedantic but concentration and insulin syringe are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Are you using a u-100 or u-40 syringe? That changes everything.
dead space is real and the syringe matters
Small correction: the trial was 6 weeks, not 34. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
swirl, do not shake, or you are courting oxidation
dosing errors come from people reconstituting two vials differently and forgetting which is which
I am going to push back on this slightly.
never post a calculation as advice without stating the concentration
never post a calculation as advice without stating the concentration
Disagree on that part. 99.0% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
Cosigning. The concentration on the vial in marker is load-bearing.
Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.
- 1This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three…9 comments in this branch · started by u/anjali_tamm
- 2dosing errors come from people reconstituting two vials differently and…5 comments in this branch · started by u/liv_nkemelu