Following on from julia.endo — and this may be the naive question:
Why the interval is four weeks rather than two, and whether a slower ladder gets to the same place?
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.
anders_CPH said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsanders_CPH said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
That reframing is the part I needed.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
Worth separating that from the titration schedule, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.