kate.chem said:No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
kate.chem said:No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Coming at kate.chem’s question from a different direction. STEP 4 is the study that answers this and it is blunt. Participants who continued kept losing; participants switched to placebo regained about two thirds of what they had lost within a year, and the metabolic improvements faded with the weight. That is the same pattern as every other chronic-disease medication ever withdrawn, and it is an argument about the condition rather than about the drug.
One concrete data point for the thread. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Whether extending the interval works as well as reducing the dose, since they are not the same intervention pharmacologically?
TrialTracker_MD said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
Worth separating that from the maintenance and discontinuation question, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.