SarahChen_PharmD said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Coming at SarahChen_PharmD’s question from a different direction. The dose-response is real but shallow at the top. Across STEP 1 and STEP 4 the gap between 1.7mg and 2.4mg is a couple of percentage points of body weight on average, and the average is carrying a wide spread — plenty of people at 1.7mg sit above the 2.4mg mean. If a dose is working and tolerable, "working" is the relevant variable, not "maximal".
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
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.
One thing that is still open after SarahChen_PharmD’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsHPLC_Greg said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently from HPLC_Greg, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
HPLC_Greg said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.