bacteriostatic water vs units — genuinely asking which matters more
Confession thread, sort of.
I went from 10mg to 2.5mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 13 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway.
So now I have injection-site soreness I did not need and a data point I cannot interpret. Two lessons in one.
Posting it in the hope that somebody at week 6 reads it before doing the same thing.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This is correct. 2mL versus 11mL is the common mistake.
Cosigning. The concentration on the vial in marker is load-bearing.
Cosigning.
Adding to this: bacteriostatic water is doing more work than the comment implies.
Reconstituted at 2mL when I meant 21mL. Caught it because the units looked wrong. Write the concentration.
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
u-100 syringe, not u-40, or your math is off by factor of 7
bacteriostatic and sterile water are not interchangeable, do not use them that way
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
the concentration on the vial in marker is the most important step
swirl, do not shake, or you are courting oxidation
i am begging people to write down the concentration
dead space is real and the syringe matters
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
Crossposting this to c/survodutide because the people who need it are not reading this community.
- 1Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do…5 comments in this branch · started by u/viktor_erdogan
- 2Cosigning. The concentration on the vial in marker is load-bearing.4 comments in this branch · started by u/yusuf_achebe