genuine question about appetite that I am slightly embarrassed to ask
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: mechanism matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 8 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 17 people measuring the same thing the same way. I have started; my numbers are below. They lean one way but not strongly enough for me to declare victory.
If you have data, post the data. If you have an opinion, flair it as an opinion.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
do not extrapolate rodent data to human dosing without saying so
the 17-day half-life means week 17 is still ramp-up pharmacokinetically
rodent appetite tells you what to investigate, not what to expect in humans
Rodent, human, or in vitro?
amylin is not GLP-1, posts conflating them get corrected
the half-life is receptor, affects steady state timing
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
mechanistic speculation is welcome if flaired as speculation
the half-life is receptor, affects steady state timing
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
Yeah, the incretin mechanism is doing the work here.
Which paper are you quoting?
Yeah, the incretin mechanism is doing the work here.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
- 1The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.6 comments in this branch · started by u/niels_roos
- 2the half-life is receptor, affects steady state timing6 comments in this branch · started by u/devils_advocate_d