NeuroNate said:The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.
I read this differently from NeuroNate, on substance rather than tone. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Worth knowing that the injection site changes very little. Abdomen, thigh and upper arm are bioequivalent for semaglutide, so a site change is not a plausible explanation for a bad week.
Dr.CardioMD said:The trial means are being read too generously in this thread.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after RetaRick_CA’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
Reporting back.
Six weeks on from posting: I stopped reading the weekly number and started reading a four-week average, and the "stall" I opened this thread about was a 1.8kg loss I could not see.