switched from 0.5mg to 2.4mg and the constipation got better, not worse
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking maintenance against eGFR for 21 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
[removed by moderator]
The plateau is real and boring. 76 weeks at the same weight, then movement again. Patience was the intervention.
Small correction: the trial was 18 weeks, not 31. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
regain is not a moral failing
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
Small correction: the trial was 15 weeks, not 7. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with long term, not with what you concluded.
Regain on a taper is expected. 11% back over 40 weeks, which matches the discontinuation data. Planned for it.
food noise returns but not always immediately
Regain on a taper is expected.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 43 weeks to accept.
nobody posts about this part and it is the longest part
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with long term, not with what you concluded.
regain after taper is expected, plan for it
state how long you have been at maintenance, week 14 is not maintenance
regain is not a moral failing
regain is not a moral failing
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the plateau is where the learning happens
Mechanistically the bit that matters is lowest effective dose. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
- 1regain after taper is expected, plan for it6 comments in this branch · started by u/aurel_mwangi
- 2Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell…5 comments in this branch · started by u/kaplan_meier_kim