After reading through the study, I am not too worried about it either
I am very close to pulling the trigger on the FGL order. I just don't want to be stuck with a bunch of vials of peptides that require a higher dosage than economically feasible, because I went off two anecdotes from people I do not know.
I have dug into studies a little deeper. In one study, they injected 5mcg into rats and found statistical improvements. The rats weighed 165g grams. So we can calculate their dosage as 30mcg/kg. If we correct that for allometric scaling, that leaves us with a human dosage of 4.8mcg/kg. That would be just under 400mcg for my body weight per day. Now those dosages were intracerebroventricularly injected, so I am not sure how much loss in efficiency we are going to see through the blood brain barrier. However, at least we are now in the ballpark with dosages. One other tasty tidbit of information was that the FGL source they used was 85% pure. Ours is going to be 99% pure, so that should make it more potent.
Digging a little further into it, I found another study that used subcutaneous injections on rats weighing 250g. They used .9mg/kg, 2.7mg/kg, and 8mg/kg dosages. Both the 8mg/kg and 2.7mg/kg dosages showed statistical improvements in memory, while there was no effect at the .9mg/kg. Those dosages correspond to .14mg/kg, .43mg/kg, and 1.3mg/kg in humans. So the equivalent dosage of 11mg for my body weight showed no effects in rats, while 35mg and 105mg did. Now that is in rats, so it might not correspond perfectly. However, 250mcg is looking a little low by my calculations.
That same study did look at the effect of intranasal and sub-Q administration on plasma concentration, and found that FGL rapidly passes the blood brain barrier, and is extremely stable, being found in plasma for up to 5 hours after injection. Furthermore, improvements in social memory lasted for 73 hours after administration! So this seems like a very effective and long lasting peptide if we can get the dosages correct.
Then there was a human study that used intranasal administration of 25mg, 50mg, and 100mg. The issue is that they only detected FGL in plasma for the 50mg and 100mg dosages. The 25mg dosage was undetectable. They did reference another study that showed intranasal administration in dogs did not lead to measurable increases in plasma concentration, but that subcutaneous administration did. So perhaps the lower dosages will work sub-Q, while not intranasal. But 250mcg? I don't know...
They also state this:
This dose range was selected for investigation as it approximates to the expected minimal effective dose and the highest well tolerated or feasible dose in humans, based on projections of data collected in pharmacological experiments in rodents.
Since I am coming up with very similar numbers to they are on my own research, I would imagine that the estimations are fairly accurate. If that is the case, the 250mcg dosage is looking unlikely. The one weird thing is that human intranasal dosages did not reach peak plasma levels until 1 hour after administration. This is in contrast to the 10 minutes we saw with subcutaneous in rats. Perhaps the subcutaneous is a lot more efficient than intranasal in humans. But is it orders of magnitude more efficient?
I don't know guys, two anecdotes are not much for me to go on here; especially when they are contradicting the numbers I am coming up with. I don't want to be rude, but are PAM2 and Xenix trusted people around here? I really want to believe, but my logic is sounding off alarms in my head.
Thoughts?
