[Results] 22 weeks, 45kg, and maintenance was the hard part
Genuinely asking, not being difficult.
Everyone in c/customs repeats that goal weight is important. I believe it, but I have never seen anyone show why, and when I search I get 20 threads of people agreeing with each other.
Is there a paper? Is there a measurement? Or is this one of those things that is true because it has been repeated since 2023?
I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
the lowest effective dose question changes at maintenance
dose-stretching experiences welcome, dose-stretching instructions are not
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
nobody posts about this part and it is the longest part
Slight fix: the number was 99.2, not 99.1. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Slight fix: the number was 99.2, not 99.1.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
This is correct. Weight variance is normal at maintenance.
This is correct.
Disagree on that part. 97.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
This is correct. Weight variance is normal at maintenance.
lowest effective dose is lowest effective dose, find it or stay higher
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
the lowest dose you can stay on is not the lowest dose that works
the lowest dose you can stay on is not the lowest dose that works
Regain on a taper is expected. 13% back over 24 weeks, which matches the discontinuation data. Planned for it.
weight moves within 2kg and that is normal
weight moves within 2kg and that is normal
Adding to this: lowest effective dose is doing more work than the comment implies.
dose-stretching experiences welcome, dose-stretching instructions are not
weight moves within 2kg and that is normal
Disagree on that part. 96.8% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
Yeah, maintenance is the boring part and the important part.
This is correct. Weight variance is normal at maintenance.
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
Slight fix: the number was 95.1, not 94.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Slight fix: the number was 95.1, not 94.2.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
- 1this deserves more than 4 upvotes8 comments in this branch · started by u/nadia_trevino
- 2This is correct. Weight variance is normal at maintenance.6 comments in this branch · started by u/blunt_coldbox_notes