TinaHashiRN said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
Coming at TinaHashiRN’s question from a different direction. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
Following on from TinaHashiRN — 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?
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsraj_cambridge said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Update. I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks. Worth knowing rather than worth repeating.