This follows post #4 rather than contradicting it. I would be cautious about generalising from the taste changes and food aversion example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Taste changes and food aversion, reported and discussed Everything below is what sits behind that.
The question about taste changes and food aversion that I actually want answered is the second one below. The first is context and I have kept it short.
Both are stated with units, and I have said what I already checked so that nobody repeats it.
Picking up the opening post: that is the part I would want checked first.
Hair shedding: telogen effluvium associated with rapid weight loss is reported. The timing usually correlates with the speed of weight change rather than the compound specifically. It is usually self-limiting.
The general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.
The published rates come from populations that were titrated on a defined schedule with clinical supervision. Rates from a forum are not comparable and are biased by who chooses to post.
I have no interest in any supplier named above.
This follows post #4 rather than contradicting it.
I would be cautious about generalising from the taste changes and food aversion example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
I read post #6 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
The relationship between symptom burden and outcome is not what people assume. Feeling worse is not evidence of a larger effect and feeling nothing is not evidence of an inactive preparation.
Post #8 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The published rates come from populations that were titrated on a defined schedule with clinical supervision. Rates from a forum are not comparable and are biased by who chooses to post.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
Injection site reaction: local erythema, nodules, or induration at injection sites is reported by some people. Site rotation, avoiding reinjection into the same area for weeks, and allowing areas that react to recover all reduce the frequency.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
Coming back to post #9, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Practical note on taste changes and food aversion: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.
I disagree with the framing of taste changes and food aversion above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Constipation is reported at least as often as nausea and is discussed a fraction as much. Fluid, fibre and movement are the boring answers and they are the ones that work.
I read post #13 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Two things can be true about taste changes and food aversion at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.
Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.
Reported effects on taste and on food preference are common and interesting and unstudied in any detail. They are also the ones people find most disconcerting.
Fatigue: commonly reported, frequently multifactorial. It is worth asking whether other factors have changed (sleep, training volume, diet adequacy, hydration) before attributing all of it to the compound. Some fatigue resolves with time; some persists.
Post #21 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
A definition problem is doing most of the work in this taste changes and food aversion discussion. Once the term is pinned down I suspect the disagreement mostly goes away and what is left is small.
On post #20 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
What I would check first on taste changes and food aversion is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.
The published rates come from populations that were titrated on a defined schedule with clinical supervision. Rates from a forum are not comparable and are biased by who chooses to post.
Worth separating two things that post #24 runs together.
Reading this taste changes and food aversion thread as someone who came in with a fixed view: the third and seventh replies moved me and the confident ones did not.
Picking up post #26: that is the part I would want checked first.
Taste changes and food aversion has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.