LipidDoc_ATL said:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.

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.

sean_dublin said:

Steady state is the thing most people miss.

That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

LipidDoc_ATL said:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.

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.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.