Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
One thing that is still open after Dr.PeteFamMed’s answer:
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?
BethLabQueen said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemBethLabQueen said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
BethLabQueen said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Taking it to my next appointment.