One 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.
Worth separating that from vendor vetting, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Reporting back after another eight months at the same dose. Still losing slowly, no new side effects, and no reason I can find to climb further.
josh_phd_bmore said:Reporting back after another eight months at the same dose.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsjosh_phd_bmore said:Reporting back after another eight months at the same dose.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
josh_phd_bmore said:Reporting back after another eight months at the same dose.
That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.