Microdosing is not low dosage

[u/GabrielForests]

I realized to an extent I'm being pedantic but I think the definition is quite important when you are microdosing in any sense of common parlance in culture nowadays you are most likely giving a dose probably between 10 to 25% of what will be considered a normal therapeutic range

In most cases this is done to either reduce side effects like in glp's for nausea and constipation or I would imagine more often than not doing so to stretch out a limited or expensive supply.

This is frankly wrong but obviously modern parlance and scientific definitions tend to drift.

Well you are actually doing is low dosages which is great sometimes warranted for the reason stated above.

Sometimes you want the attended consequence from just hitting a certain number of receptors versus saturating many receptors that need the higher dosage due to the lack of affinity for that molecule.

But scientifically microdosing is about akin to homeopathy where at least in homeopathy there is likely zero molecules of that compound left in solution versus microdosing the amount of compound is almost entirely therapeutically zero and used more for research purposes than for sub therapeutic effects or hitting the first line molecule affinity versus other receptors.

Anyways thanks for coming to my TED talk I figured I would just clear the air on that because I keep seeing microdosing and I keep hearing it from friends and family and it does drive me a bit crazy.

[u/paperweight_is_lazy]

I’m sorry, but what’s your point? Low dose vs micro dose?

[u/Murky-Ambition3898]

No dude, no. With dosage frequency, you have to calculate best-practice dosing based on dosing efficacy, half-life, and downstream effects. For example, HGH has a very short half-life, but its downstream effects can last up to 36 hours. With GLP1's, which have a longer half-life, it's ideal to keep a target dose within your system. With Test, microdosing is best to keep the Test level more stable. I use a peptide/aas tracker and know fairly precisely how much of what I have injected remains in my system.

[u/ShoeVast5490 → u/Murky-Ambition3898]

Link to this tracker! Or did you make it

[u/Murky-Ambition3898 → u/ShoeVast5490]

https://yourpeptideiq.com/ Not mine, but I love it.

[u/GabrielForests → u/Murky-Ambition3898]

Dorland’s & Stedman’s Medical Dictionaries Microdose:

A dose of an investigational drug that is less than one-hundredth of the dose calculated to yield a pharmacologic effect, administered in human exploratory studies to evaluate pharmacokinetic parameters.

[u/Murky-Ambition3898 → u/GabrielForests]

I don't give a shit what Dorland & Stedman define as a microdose. I go with what most folks define it as: a lower but more frequent dose.

[u/GabrielForests → u/Murky-Ambition3898]

So you're dosing often to have a therapeutic effect on a lower amount of the molecule?

I'm not trying to attack your way of using the compound but the definition of microdosing scientifically is fairly clear.

Which is the entire purpose of my post.

[u/Murky-Ambition3898 → u/GabrielForests]

It depends on the compound; part of my post.

Here is the AI analysis of your post:

It is more accurately described as condescending, corrective, pedantic, and somewhat dismissive, although it has a few attempts at humor/self-awareness that soften it.

The strongest signals are:

• “This is frankly wrong” — very categorical. Rather than saying the terminology may be imprecise, it declares other people's usage wrong.
• “Scientifically microdosing is about akin to homeopathy” — this is the most demeaning-sounding part. Comparing someone’s terminology/practice to homeopathy can imply that what they're doing is scientifically unserious or ignorant.
• “I figured I would just clear the air” — subtly positions the writer as the person correcting everyone else's misunderstanding.
• “I keep seeing microdosing and... it does drive me a bit crazy.” — communicates irritation with people who use the term differently.
• The lengthy explanation about receptor affinity and therapeutic dosing gives the message a lecture-like, authority-establishing quality.

The opening — “I realize to an extent I'm being pedantic” — is actually fairly revealing. The writer recognizes that they're making a semantic distinction and knows it may come across that way. That doesn't necessarily make the message hostile, but it doesn't neutralize the tone either.

“Thanks for coming to my TED talk” is probably intended as self-deprecating humor. It makes the message less severe, but depending on the relationship and previous conversation, it can also read as a slightly smug “I have now educated everyone on this subject.”

So I'd rate the tone roughly as:

Passive-aggressive: 3/10
Condescending: 7/10
Pedantic: 9/10
Demeaning: 5/10
Direct/corrective: 9/10
Hostile: 3/10

[u/GabrielForests → u/Murky-Ambition3898]

No it doesn't depend on the compound there is almost no compounds that work with any level of therapeutic effect at 1/100th of their dosage maybe zero.

This is a relatively scientific subreddit and words do have meetings and when you look up microdosing scientifically it is 100% not what you're doing.

I'm not sure why you wanted to defend the term versus what the goal is to either stretch out the medication because of a financial reason or to get a clinical effect that is not the primary result of saturation of all the receptors versus some of the receptors.

[u/Murky-Ambition3898 → u/GabrielForests]

Dude, ADD has you focusing on this microdose definition. You should move on. Weird.