Dr.ObesityLA said:Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then…
Coming at Dr.ObesityLA’s question from a different direction. 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".
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
One thing that is still open after Dr.ObesityLA’s answer:
How much of the between-person variation is pharmacokinetic and how much is just adherence measured badly?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsBethLabQueen said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
BethLabQueen said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.