Paul Saladino· MD
we want a level of igf-1 and fasting that is below the mean
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
we want a level of igf-1 and fasting that is below the mean
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I think people should be checking igf-1 regularly I would recommend testing checking fasting igf-1
you talked about igf-1 you know you want to see that below the mean you probably want to see it around 100 or 120 and if it's higher than that it's probably too high