This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
I have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.
Post #90 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Holding a dose indefinitely: the trials did not study indefinite holding at a non-maximum dose. The trials escalated to a target and then held that. What happens if you stay at an intermediate dose for years is not formally studied and extrapolation is the best available reasoning.
Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it.
Narrowing post #92, because the general version has more than one answer.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.
How the published trials escalated: they used specific step sizes and intervals. The STEP programme used a particular cadence; the SURPASS and SURMOUNT programmes used slightly different ones. Reading them side by side shows the variation is real but small.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.
Post #94 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Going back down a step is not a failure and the trials allowed it. Several protocols permitted a return to the previous dose for tolerability and then a second attempt at the step.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
I read post #94 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
I would want a second opinion before relying on that.
A titration plan written down in advance is easier to stick to and easier to abandon deliberately. An improvised one becomes a series of decisions made on the worst day of each week.
That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
The arithmetic of an intermediate dose: if the label says 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg, a dose strictly between them is off-label by definition. Some people compute it anyway. The reasoning is pharmacological — e.g., "I will split the difference between steps" — but it is reasoning from theory, not from evidence.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
Picking up post #102: that is the part I would want checked first.
A titration plan written down in advance is easier to stick to and easier to abandon deliberately. An improvised one becomes a series of decisions made on the worst day of each week.
That is the honest state of it as of this week.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[2026 update] What steady state means for the decision to escalate
The question in the title: What steady state means for the decision to escalate I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Asking about steady state directly, because I have read four…
|
+127 | 137 | 32k | 8mo |
|
Reaching a dose and staying there for a year: a longitudinal note
Reaching a dose and staying there for a year: a longitudinal note Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have read the maintained page on this and I still have a…
|
2 | 763 | 15mo | |
|
Restarting after a long gap: what the labelling implies — the long version
Restarting after a long gap: what the labelling implies — the long version Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have read the maintained page on this and I…
|
+12 | 17 | 2.4k | 2mo |
|
Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against
Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have read the maintained page on this and I still have a gap, so I…
|
+24 | 28 | 51k | 5mo |
|
What steady state means for the decision to escalate
What steady state means for the decision to escalate — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A question about steady state that I think has a definite answer,…
|
+31 | 35 | 2k | 1d |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Semaglutide in people without diabetes: what the evidence base looks like
Semaglutide in people without diabetes: what the evidence base looks like Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. What changes if the standard account of semaglutide…
|
+2 | 6 | 18k | 17mo |
|
Revisiting: What to include when your question involves arithmetic
Revisiting: What to include when your question involves arithmetic — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Counting it rather than describing it, because the count is the part…
|
+21 | 25 | 384 | 12mo |
|
An ABAB design with a data table and honest limitations — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: An ABAB design with a data table and honest limitations — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on ABAB design. It is mine, it is…
|
+106 | 118 | 25k | 4mo |
|
Restarting after a long gap: what the labelling implies — the long version
Restarting after a long gap: what the labelling implies — the long version Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have read the maintained page on this and I…
|
+12 | 17 | 2.4k | 2mo |
|
Amylin receptor signalling and satiety — what changed since
On the subject in the title: Amylin receptor signalling and satiety — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of Amylin receptor signalling and satiety…
|
+73 | 78 | 3.5k | 2mo |