hans_munich said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
mike_nyc said:Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
hans_munich said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Pushing back on hans_munich here. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne concrete data point for the thread. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.