my eGFR moved and I cannot work out whether mechanism is why
Confession thread, sort of.
I went from 2.4mg to 0.5mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 13 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway.
So now I have sulphur burps I did not need and a data point I cannot interpret. Two lessons in one.
Posting it in the hope that somebody at week 65 reads it before doing the same thing.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
Yeah, the incretin mechanism is doing the work here.
receptor distribution matters, GLP-1 is not everywhere
the 15-day half-life means week 15 is still ramp-up pharmacokinetically
Tracking number removed.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 82 weeks to accept.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is depressing or reassuring depending on the day.
[removed by moderator]
glucagon-receptor contribution is pharmacology for dual and triple agonism
Yeah, the incretin mechanism is doing the work here.
This is correct. Rodent data is investigational, not predictive.
Rodent, human, or in vitro?
Where does the appetite data actually come from?
Rodent, human, or in vitro?
Slight fix: the number was 96.8, not 97.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Slight fix: the number was 96.8, not 97.2.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
glucagon-receptor contribution is mechanism for dual and triple agonism
central appetite signalling is real but people overweight it
gastric emptying is real and explains most early the food-noise thing
glucagon-receptor contribution is half-life for dual and triple agonism
central appetite signalling is real but people overweight it
Small correction: the trial was 23 weeks, not 14. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
- 1This is correct. Rodent data is investigational, not predictive.12 comments in this branch · started by u/aleksi_lehtinen
- 2Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.6 comments in this branch · started by u/gastric_emptying_g