When to hold at a dose vs continue titrating — my results so far

EndoResFellow said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

laura_annarbor said:

Agreed on the arithmetic, with one condition: holding indefinitely at a dose that is not doing anything is not patience, it is a stall with a nice…

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

EndoResFellow said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

I read this differently from EndoResFellow, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. No action needed from anybody.