Dr.GutHealth said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.
labquiet_amy said:The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Dr.GutHealth said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Pushing back on Dr.GutHealth 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.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.