Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. 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".

LarryQC_SD said:

The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.

That holds for the injectable. The oral formulation has different absorption behaviour and the dose numbers are not interchangeable, which is worth saying out loud because people quote them as if they were.

amy_econ_NJ said:

Prescribed on cardiovascular grounds rather than for weight, and almost everything written for patients assumes the opposite.

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.

Vitamin deficiency cascade with cardiovascular risk: after 6+ months of reduced food intake, I developed a subtle but important pattern: low B12 → elevated homocysteine → increased cardiovascular risk marker.

The connection: B12 is a cofactor for homocysteine metabolism. Without adequate B12, homocysteine accumulates. This is ironic — taking a CV-protective medication while developing a CV risk factor from reduced nutrition.

Solution: comprehensive vitamin supplementation and regular lab monitoring. Don't let the medication's benefits be undermined by nutritional deficiencies.