PeptideChemSF said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update since I posted: I held at 1.7mg for a further twelve weeks and lost another 4kg slowly, which settles it for me. I was escalating because the number was available, not because I had stopped responding.
VendorMark said:Update since I posted: I held at 1.7mg for a further twelve weeks and lost another 4kg slowly, which settles it for me.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsVendorMark said:Update since I posted: I held at 1.7mg for a further twelve weeks and lost another 4kg slowly, which settles it for me.
Coming at VendorMark’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.