Dr.NateNeph said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
emma_london said:Agreed on the arithmetic, with one condition: holding indefinitely at a dose that is not doing anything is not patience, it is a stall with a nice…
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Dr.NateNeph said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.