Appreciate the insight — that's really useful information. Good to know 4mg isn't some magic dose for Reta, and that your labs got better (a sign of metabolic flexibility).
True, though cutting out high fructose syrup and heavily processed bread feels almost too obviousJust A Cat said:
Those cute young drug reps aren’t exactly training doctors to think critically.
@plant_lady If you want the biggest return for the least effort when it comes to optimizing metabolic flexibility, cutting out high fructose corn syrup and steering clear of bread made through the Chorleywood Bread Process are your best options.
Right now I’m doing both, and I don’t intend to ever stop.
. I suppose no miracle solution exists.What a thorough explanation—really appreciate the useful details!tubby said:
For anyone wondering, the specifics can be found in the original phase 1 trial:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413122003126
Later trials are also valuable, but every one of them relied on prolonged reta use. By that stage, you can't separate what comes from the drug acting directly versus what comes from the weight loss the drug caused. That distinction matters, since effects produced by losing weight aren't specific to reta—any GLP or weight loss program could produce the same outcomes. The phase 1 data were collected before meaningful weight loss had a chance to happen, so they reflect the drug's direct effects.
The 4mg thing is simply an observation that with a single one-time reta dose, serum glucagon wasn't significantly suppressed below a 4mg dose. The myth sticks around because people—even those who ought to know better—prefer to leap to conclusions instead of examining what such a result actually implies.
With reta, the aim isn't to reduce glucagon but to stimulate/activate glucagon receptors. Glucagon drops because the more reta activates glucagon receptors, the more your body is tricked into believing it has released too much glucagon. In response to that belief, it begins reducing glucagon production. So it follows that as dosing climbs higher and higher with reta, that effect would grow stronger, and your body would push back harder by cutting how much glucagon it makes.
From what I've seen, most doctors aren't especially strong at critical thinking. So they look at a graph and conclude, "hey, glucagon seems to start changing at 4mg, so that must be where the glucagon effect begins." They also overlook that people dosing weekly will actually have notably higher blood levels of reta than they'd get after a single one-time dose (which is what the phase 1 trial used)—you'd expect them to notice that, but alas most don't.
This was new to me…pretty fascinating! It also makes sense of why so much supermarket bread doesn't taste at all like what you get from a bakery or make at home!Just A Cat said:
Those cute young drug reps aren’t exactly training doctors to think critically.
@plant_lady If you want the biggest return for the least effort when it comes to optimizing metabolic flexibility, cutting out high fructose corn syrup and steering clear of bread made through the Chorleywood Bread Process are your best options.
Right now I’m doing both, and I don’t intend to ever stop.
Yeah, YouTube isn't the most reliable place to get advice
. Any sour dough bread brands you'd recommend?That's an amusing take. If maximizing BHB is the goal, keto is the straightforward route — pair it with low to moderate protein and you can likely reach fairly solid serum ketone readings.
Yes, it is certainly possible to determine which benefits occur independently of weight loss — that is precisely what statistical analysis exists to do.tubby said:
For anyone wondering, the specifics can be found in the original phase 1 trial:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413122003126
Later trials are also valuable, but every one of them relied on prolonged reta use. By that stage, you can't separate what comes from the drug acting directly versus what comes from the weight loss the drug caused. That distinction matters, since effects produced by losing weight aren't specific to reta—any GLP or weight loss program could produce the same outcomes. The phase 1 data were collected before meaningful weight loss had a chance to happen, so they reflect the drug's direct effects.
The 4mg thing is simply an observation that with a single one-time reta dose, serum glucagon wasn't significantly suppressed below a 4mg dose. The myth sticks around because people—even those who ought to know better—prefer to leap to conclusions instead of examining what such a result actually implies.
With reta, the aim isn't to reduce glucagon but to stimulate/activate glucagon receptors. Glucagon drops because the more reta activates glucagon receptors, the more your body is tricked into believing it has released too much glucagon. In response to that belief, it begins reducing glucagon production. So it follows that as dosing climbs higher and higher with reta, that effect would grow stronger, and your body would push back harder by cutting how much glucagon it makes.
From what I've seen, most doctors aren't especially strong at critical thinking. So they look at a graph and conclude, "hey, glucagon seems to start changing at 4mg, so that must be where the glucagon effect begins." They also overlook that people dosing weekly will actually have notably higher blood levels of reta than they'd get after a single one-time dose (which is what the phase 1 trial used)—you'd expect them to notice that, but alas most don't.
Turning to YouTube for advice? Sure, naturally. Otherwise, how would you learn to fix your own appliances?
