Dr.DermMIA said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Agreed, though "tolerable" needs defining. A dose you tolerate by eating almost nothing is not tolerated, it is being paid for somewhere else — usually in lean mass, sometimes in adherence three months later.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

RetaRick_CA said:

Steady state is the thing most people miss.

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.

Dr.DermMIA said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

I will push back on the "any working dose is fine" framing. The maintenance evidence sits overwhelmingly at the top studied dose, and the extension data shows regain tracking dose reduction rather than tracking stopping. Holding low is reasonable; pretending it is evidentially equivalent is not.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

One concrete data point for the thread. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. No action needed from anybody.