josh_phd_bmore said:

Worth knowing that the injection site changes very little.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

josh_phd_bmore said:

Worth knowing that the injection site changes very little.

Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

josh_phd_bmore said:

Worth knowing that the injection site changes very little.

That reframing is the part I needed. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.

Dr.SleepRoch said:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.

Mine went the same way, slower. Nothing to add that would improve it.