u/dexa_twice_yearly

mostly protein shakes honestly, whole food protein felt like too much volume most days, shakes solved that

can confirm, was tracking protein carefully the whole stretch specifically because I'd read enough of these threads to know it mattered

steady, roughly 9-10k daily throughout, good question though, that's exactly the kind of confounder that would've changed my interpretation

DEXA twice a year is the only way to know. mine held lean mass at 92% while fat mass halved, and without the scans i would have assumed the slowdown was failure.

that's basically why I got the scan at all, wanted a second measurement that could actually separate the two things

Appetite change and weight change are different measurements on different timescales. The first is usually noticed first and the second lags it.

strongly agree, posted my own recomp DEXA data recently and the scale was nearly frozen the entire time fat mass was actively dropping. "stall" as a word assumes the scale is measuring one thing, and once you're lifting it's measuring at least two things pulling in opposite directions.

twice as much water halves the concentration and doubles the units for the same dose

would push back gently on using scale weight alone to decide "done" at all, body comp (even just a home bioimpedance scale, imperfect as those are) gave me a much better signal for when I'd actually reached a healthy composition than the number on the scale did.

This is the fifth "should I go up" post today and they are all welcome — but no member here can answer it for you.

week two with nothing happening is normal

Trial identifiers corrected in the title. SURMOUNT and SURPASS are different programmes.

also worth a body-comp check if you can get one, "the scale is flat" and "I've stopped changing" are not always the same statement, sometimes fat is still dropping while something else offsets it.

Have you held a step for longer than the four-week minimum at any point?

search first, but a repeat question is not a crime

more water is not more drug, it is the same drug in a bigger volume

Agreed — protein and resistance training. Everything else in these threads is a rounding error on those two.

Removed the conversion table. There is no published equivalence between the two molecules and posting one as fact is exactly the kind of thing that gets copied for years.

Trial identifiers corrected in the title. SURMOUNT and SURPASS are different programmes.

Weekly dosing again, half-life in the same neighbourhood as sema, so a step change takes about a month to reach steady state. Judging a new step at day five is judging noise.

A certificate of analysis is a document describing one batch: what was tested, by what method, and what the result was. Its value depends entirely on whether it names the batch and the method.

the number you write down is the number you will trust at 6am

Weekly dosing again, half-life in the same neighbourhood as sema, so a step change takes about a month to reach steady state. Judging a new step at day five is judging noise.

That comparison is between two different products at two different concentrations, which is where the confusion is coming from.

Yes. The starting dose is a tolerance step. It is not supposed to do very much.

Push back on the goal number. You chose it before you knew what any of this felt like.

Removed a prescriptive nutrition target aimed at another member. Describe your own intake instead.

Same. Comparison ruined about three months for me until I stopped reading the fastest posts.

The lyophilised cake displaces a small volume, so the true concentration is very slightly lower than the arithmetic suggests. It is a fraction of a percent and it is dwarfed by fill tolerance.

This is the fifth "should I go up" post today and they are all welcome — but no member here can answer it for you.

Bacteriostatic or plain sterile water?

What this compound is actually being developed for, since the boards treat it as a weight-loss molecule with a footnote.

It is a dual GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist, and the glucagon arm links to hepatic fat and energy expenditure. The headline programme is metabolic liver disease, with endpoints scored on biopsy rather than on a scale.

That matters for how the data should be read. A histological response rate in a biopsy-confirmed population answers a very different question from a mean weight change in an obesity trial, and quoting one in place of the other — which happens in nearly every thread here — is not a comparison.

Reminder that nobody here is prescribing training and the sidebar says so.

Reminder that nobody here is prescribing training and the sidebar says so.

Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.

Reminder that nobody here is prescribing training and the sidebar says so.

This is the fifth "should I go up" post today and they are all welcome — but no member here can answer it for you.

Bacteriostatic water contains a preservative, which is what makes repeated entry into a vial reasonable. Sterile water does not, and the two are not interchangeable for that purpose.