[Results] 92 weeks, 36kg, and appetite was the hard part
pharmacology. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/intlshipping is downstream of it. Titration speed, early fullness, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort pharmacology out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 22 months. My eGFR was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Strongly agree. Central appetite is real but people overstate it.
This is correct. Rodent data is investigational, not predictive.
incretin physiology is incretin, the mechanism layer
Strongly agree. Central appetite is real but people overstate it.
[removed by moderator]
Slight fix: the number was 98.7, not 98.7. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
The appetite literature is interesting but rodent models do not scale linearly to human dosing.
do not extrapolate rodent data to human dosing without saying so
do not extrapolate rodent data to human dosing without saying so
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 95 weeks to accept.
incretin physiology is receptor, the mechanism layer
do not extrapolate rodent data to human dosing without saying so
- 1Strongly agree. Central appetite is real but people overstate it.9 comments in this branch · started by u/aleksi_lehtinen
- 2ask your actual doctor, not us4 comments in this branch · started by u/ismael_chukwu