Dr.Martinez said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Agreed, though "tolerable" needs defining. A dose you tolerate by eating almost nothing is not tolerated, it is being paid for somewhere else — usually in lean mass, sometimes in adherence three months later.
gary_naperville said:The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Dr.Martinez said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Pushing back on Dr.Martinez here. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. No action needed from anybody.