I have been on both sides of the micronutrient status argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
On the subject in the title: Micronutrient status when intake falls substantially Working notes rather than a conclusion.
Posting a small dataset on micronutrient status. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and the method is stated so it can be discounted appropriately.
What I would like is not agreement but a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in mine. If one exists I would rather read it than argue for this one.
I have been on both sides of the micronutrient status argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first.
Micronutrient status is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.
On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Repeat before acting is standard practice for an isolated abnormal result on most analytes, and it is standard for a reason.
The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.
What I want from this micronutrient status thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Time of day: some biomarkers vary across the day. Cortisol in the morning differs from cortisol in the evening. Comparing results from different times of day is comparing things that are not the same.
That is all I can say without guessing.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
Building on post #7 rather than restating it.
Glycaemic markers integrate over different periods. A point glucose and a longer-term marker disagreeing is not a contradiction; it is two different questions.
That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.
Where the micronutrient status discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.
A trend needs at least three points to be a trend. Two points are a line and a line through noise is still a line.
Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.
Where I part company with post #11, and it is a narrow parting.
The bit of micronutrient status that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
Offering a way to settle micronutrient status rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.
Repeat before acting is standard practice for an isolated abnormal result on most analytes, and it is standard for a reason.
Scoping that to what I have actually seen rather than what I have read.
No notes. Posting so the count is not one.
This follows post #18 rather than contradicting it.
Reframing micronutrient status slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
Picking up post #20: that is the part I would want checked first.
My experience of micronutrient status contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.
On post #18 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Time of day: some biomarkers vary across the day. Cortisol in the morning differs from cortisol in the evening. Comparing results from different times of day is comparing things that are not the same.
Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice.
Adding the measurement that post #23 says would settle it.
Glycaemic markers integrate over different periods. A point glucose and a longer-term marker disagreeing is not a contradiction; it is two different questions.
I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.
Where I part company with post #26, and it is a narrow parting.
Repeat before acting is standard practice for an isolated abnormal result on most analytes, and it is standard for a reason.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
A methods point on micronutrient status rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.