labquiet_amy said:The mechanism that matters here is not stomach emptying, it is central.
I will push back on the "any working dose is fine" framing. The maintenance evidence sits overwhelmingly at the top studied dose, and the extension data shows regain tracking dose reduction rather than tracking stopping. Holding low is reasonable; pretending it is evidentially equivalent is not.
One concrete data point for the thread. For anyone assembling their own picture: Tmax is one to three days, terminal half-life about 165 to 170 hours, steady state at four to five weeks, and subcutaneous bioavailability near 89%. Those four numbers explain most of the questions people ask about timing.
Dr.SurgeonPGH said:I will push back on the "any working dose is fine" framing.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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".
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from Dr.NateNeph — 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?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Six weeks on from posting: I stopped reading the weekly number and started reading a four-week average, and the "stall" I opened this thread about was a 1.8kg loss I could not see.