u/liv_dumitru

Correction: that is the combination programme, not the monotherapy readout. Different arms, different numbers.

training volume matters more than training novelty

Correction: that supplier is in the documented twenty with a source page, not in the wider-market table. Different evidence bases entirely.

long-acting amylin is the whole point of the molecule

this is a less-travelled board and the evidence base shows it

What does the tolerability table in that paper actually say?

What was the rate of weight change over that window?

Which province?

Disagree — you are quoting a combination arm as though it were monotherapy. Those are different results.

Two scans on the same machine 5 months apart. Lean mass held better than I expected and the lifts told the same story for free.

resistance training first, cardio if there is time left

the exception drug status route exists in several provinces

Asked a question here that turned out to be based on a mechanism confusion. Three people untangled it patiently.

resistance training first, cardio if there is time left

I would separate documentation from logistics. A supplier can be excellent at one and ordinary at the other, and averaging them hides it.

Correcting myself: it was a quantity limit rather than a denial, which changes the whole process.

Correction: that is regulatory approval, not coverage. They are separate decisions by separate bodies.

ask the pharmacy what the cash price is, it varies

resistance training first, cardio if there is time left

The wider-market rows in the directory carry a band and a report count and nothing else, deliberately. Anything more would be manufacturing precision that the evidence does not support.

buy small first, test it, then decide

satiety signalling rather than incretin signalling

How many separate lots has anyone here tested?

Did the lot code on the vial match the paperwork?