Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
PharmD_Rodriguez said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
PharmD_Rodriguez said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak. People who dose late are not losing a peak, they are letting the trough fall, and the appetite effect tracks the trough.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemOne 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Reporting back.
Following this thread I went back and re-read the extension data properly. The point about trough rather than peak explains the pattern I was seeing on day six, which I had been blaming on the vial.