PeptideChemSF said:The mechanism that matters here is not stomach emptying, it is central.
That holds for the injectable. The oral formulation has different absorption behaviour and the dose numbers are not interchangeable, which is worth saying out loud because people quote them as if they were.
dan_philly said:All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
PeptideChemSF said:The mechanism that matters here is not stomach emptying, it is central.
I will push back on the "any working dose is fine" framing. The maintenance evidence sits overwhelmingly at the top studied dose, and the extension data shows regain tracking dose reduction rather than tracking stopping. Holding low is reasonable; pretending it is evidentially equivalent is not.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsSurmountFan_IN said:My reason for being on this is cardiovascular rather than cosmetic, which puts me in a small minority in most of these threads.
NNT calculation for cardiovascular risk clinical endpoints: NNT = 1/ARR (absolute risk reduction).
From SELECT trial: MACE at 39 months — 6.5% semaglutide vs 8.0% placebo. ARR = 1.5%. NNT = 67 over 3.3 years.
Compare to established therapies:
| Intervention | NNT | Timeframe |
|---|---|---|
| Semaglutide (MACE) | 67 | 3.3 years |
| Statins primary prevention (MI) | ~100 | 5 years |
| Aspirin secondary prevention | ~77 | 2 years |
These NNTs are clinically meaningful and comparable to accepted cardiovascular interventions.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Carry on.