Six months in at 2.4mg. The first four months were close to the trial curve and the last two have been flat, which is roughly what the STEP 1 figure predicts if you read the tail rather than the headline.
The question I want answered is what the dose-response curve actually looks like above 1.7mg, because the trial means hide how few people account for the extra loss.
I have searched first, so if this is covered somewhere point me at it and I will read it.
Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak. People who dose late are not losing a peak, they are letting the trough fall, and the appetite effect tracks the trough.
VendorMark said:Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak.
Agreeing with VendorMark, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. 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".
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardstammy_FL said:The first four months were close to the trial curve and the last two have been flat, which is roughly what the STEP 1 figure predicts if you read the…
All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.
tammy_FL said:...but the FDA says semaglutide...
Interesting point. I want to add some regulatory nuance: the FDA labeling reflects the specific clinical trial data submitted for approval. Real-world clinical practice often extends beyond the FDA label based on emerging evidence and clinical judgment.
Example: semaglutide was first approved for diabetes (Ozempic), then obesity (Wegovy). The molecule didn't change — our understanding of its applications expanded. Similarly, semaglutide may evolve as more data accumulates.