Dr.SleepRoch said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.
SallyK_inj said:The absorption variability is real, but it partly averages out over weeks — the steady-state trough is less erratic than any single day would suggest.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Taking it to my next appointment.
Dr.SleepRoch said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
Pushing back on Dr.SleepRoch here. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.
Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.