sophie_paris said:I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
Worth separating that from liver and MASH, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
sophie_paris said:I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks.
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.
sophie_paris said:I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Worth separating that from liver and MASH, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
TrialNerd_Beth said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.