Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Whether anyone has held at a sub-maximal dose long term and kept the result, or whether the maintenance data only exists at 2.4mg?
raj_cambridge said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsraj_cambridge said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
raj_cambridge said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. I will report back once I have actually tried it.