sean_dublin 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.
Mine went the same way, slower.
sean_dublin 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.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Worth separating that from renal function, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Worth separating that from renal function, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from sean_dublin — and this may be the naive question:
What the dose-response curve actually looks like above 1.7mg, because the trial means hide how few people account for the extra loss?
Dr.PathRoch said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.