mike_nyc said:

I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks.

Second this. Nothing to add that would improve it.

mike_nyc said:

I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

One concrete data point for the thread. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.

Following on from mike_nyc — and this may be the naive question:

Whether anyone has held at a sub-maximal dose long term and kept the result, or whether the maintenance data only exists at 2.4mg?

dan_philly said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.