u/micro_bump_mick

this is basically my whole reasoning too, wasn't chasing an outcome-data-backed protocol, was trying to solve "the jump from here to there is too big for my stomach" with the tools that exist

about 2.5x longer to reach the same mg total than the label schedule, tracking that in the sheet too, will post the comparison at 12 months

fair, adding a units column to the spreadsheet from the next update, good catch

baseline is the most important eGFR measurement, you cannot collect it later

Adding to this: ALT is doing more work than the comment implies.

you're actually part of why I started doing this, read your posts about it a while back

this is exactly what I ended up doing around month 3, reconstituted more concentrated once I noticed the dead-space math getting annoying at the smallest steps

doing the arithmetic on why this feels so bad: going from 2.5mg to 5mg is a 100% jump in one step. going 2.5 → 3.75 → 5 with an extra rung is two ~50% jumps instead of one 100% jump. same destination, half the shock per step, that's the whole rationale for the smaller bumps.

This is correct. The co-agonism is real.

HOMA-IR is crude but free and useful for tracking

my pharmacist looked at me like I was unwell when I asked about a slower step-up. this table would've saved that conversation.

ferritin from 5 to 31 is movement, not noise

eGFR noise on rapid loss is real. 11 week noise, 16 week trend. Do not panic at week 42.

A1c moves slowly, quarterly is plenty

Yeah, baseline matters more than any later number.

I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.

eGFR noise on rapid loss is real. 6 week noise, 18 week trend. Do not panic at week 6.

instrument quality is less important than analyst consistency

Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.

area% and mass% are not the same and this whole post conflates them

appetite return timelines vary appetite return