[Discussion] we are measuring appetite at the wrong time and calling it noise
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: incretin matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 24 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 5 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
This is correct. Rodent data is investigational, not predictive.
Rodent, human, or in vitro?
amylin is not GLP-1, posts conflating them get corrected
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
The pharmacology literature is interesting but rodent models do not scale linearly to human dosing.
receptor distribution matters, GLP-1 is not everywhere
This is correct. Rodent data is investigational, not predictive.
Stomach physiology changed when I moved up to 12.5mg. Gastric emptying lag is the whole story.
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 6–5. Practical consequence: what you feel in week 1 is not what that dose does.
gastric emptying is real and explains most early nausea
amylin is not GLP-1, posts conflating them get corrected
I am going to push back on this slightly.
glucagon-receptor contribution is pharmacology for dual and triple agonism
Strongly agree. Central appetite is real but people overstate it.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
- 1This is correct. Rodent data is investigational, not predictive.6 comments in this branch · started by u/zeynep_villalobos
- 2This is correct. Rodent data is investigational, not predictive.6 comments in this branch · started by u/vomit_free_since