PeptideChemSF said:Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The dose-response is real but shallow at the top. Across STEP 1 and STEP 4 the gap between 1.7mg and 2.4mg is a couple of percentage points of body weight on average, and the average is carrying a wide spread — plenty of people at 1.7mg sit above the 2.4mg mean. If a dose is working and tolerable, "working" is the relevant variable, not "maximal".
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
One thing that is still open after PeptideChemSF’s answer:
How much of the between-person variation is pharmacokinetic and how much is just adherence measured badly?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsTirzTom said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Pushing back on TirzTom here. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Following this thread I went back and re-read the extension data properly. The point about trough rather than peak explains the pattern I was seeing on day six, which I had been blaming on the vial.