Posting this because the summary going around does not say what the paper says, and the difference matters for how people here are using it.
Reduced interest in alcohol is one of the most consistently reported off-target effects, and the mechanism is plausibly the same reward-salience pathway that quiets food noise. The practical part people get wrong is that tolerance changes: less food in the stomach, faster gastric emptying of liquid relative to solids, and a smaller body mean the same two drinks land considerably harder than they used to.
Where I think it is weakest: the comparator does most of the work in how this gets reported, and it is not the comparator most people think they are citing.
What I am after is whether the change in tolerance is the smaller stomach, the smaller body, or something central, and whether it settles. If the honest answer is that nobody knows, that is a useful answer and I would rather have it.
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
AttorneyGrant said:Reduced interest in alcohol is one of the most consistently reported off-target effects, and the mechanism is plausibly the same reward-salience…
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
AttorneyGrant said:Reduced interest in alcohol is one of the most consistently reported off-target effects, and the mechanism is plausibly the same reward-salience…
Pushing back on AttorneyGrant here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThis one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
NeuroNate said:I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Posting only so the count is not one.