going slow cost me nothing except time and saved me two bad weeks, thats my whole contribution
#semaglutide 2024-07-13
Saturday34 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- seven_five_sweet — genuine question. why is 2.4 the top. is there something that breaks above it or is it just where the trials stopped 06:30
- forty_units — on the 8mg/2ml pens ive used it is, sort of 07:02
- LC_MS_Lena — dose dependent in the trial data across the whole range. there is no reason to expect it stops being dose dependent right above the highest studied dose 07:58
- forty_units — for what its worth the ten weeks at 3.2 werent dangerous for me, they were just pointless. pointless is a real result too 08:04
- ten_of_ten — log it in #maintenance when you get to a year, that data is more useful than any of this 08:25
same dose day
[edited]vial units and pen clicks are different systems, mixing the two is how people end up wrong
did the STEP 4 withdrawal arm show what i think it showed
🔥17
FLOW was the kidney outcomes trial and it gets quoted in here for things it didnt measure
sorry to jump in restarted after 4 months off at a low dose and the nausea arrived exactly like the first time
the trials titrated on a fixed schedule, most people here dont, worth remembering when comparing
did anybody find a difference between QSC and pharmacy at the same 1
genuine question. why is 2.4 the top. is there something that breaks above it or is it just where the trials stopped
mostly where the label stopped. the pivotal programme was built around 2.4 weekly and thats what got approved
not only that. the dose response curve for weight flattens more than the side effect curve does
so you buy a small amount of extra effect with a fairly reliable amount of extra nausea
so its not a wall, its a bad trade
thats a fair way to put it
✅7
i sat at 3.2 for about ten weeks. i can tell you what it did for me and it is not a recommendation
appetite was maybe slightly quieter. reflux was a lot worse. i went back to 2.4 and lost weight at the same rate
thats the story i hear most often to be honest
whats the actual maths on 3.2, is that even a clean draw
on the 8mg/2ml pens ive used it is, sort of
8mg in 2ml = 4mg/ml
2.4mg -> 0.60ml -> 60 units on a u100 pin
3.2mg -> 0.80ml -> 80 units
so its a clean 20 unit step, which is exactly why people do it
"clean to draw" is not the same as "sensible to draw"sorry to jump in, whats a u100 pin
insulin syringe where 100 units = 1ml. so 1 unit = 0.01ml. see #injection-technique, theres a pinned explainer
got it, thanks
what about the other direction. does anyone stall at 2.4 and just stay there
loads of us. i was at 2.4 for fourteen months
the stall was not a dose problem for me, it was a food problem i didnt want to look at
brutal but yeah
🎯11😅4
and remember tolerance in the pharmacological sense and adaptation in the everyday sense are different things
receptor level tachyphylaxis is not really the story for weekly GLP-1s. what usually changed is you
coming back to this — is the extra nausea above 2.4 dose dependent or just noise
dose dependent in the trial data across the whole range. there is no reason to expect it stops being dose dependent right above the highest studied dose
fine. i talked myself out of it while typing
best possible outcome of a thread like this
for what its worth the ten weeks at 3.2 werent dangerous for me, they were just pointless. pointless is a real result too
log it in #maintenance when you get to a year, that data is more useful than any of this
💯5