Cole’s question about the reasoning behind each one is probably where I’d start too. Essential tremor is interesting because “neurological support” doesn’t necessarily mean “tremor control.” The outcome you’re trying to affect is pretty specific. I’d probably look at what’s known about the neurological pathways involved in ET first, and then work backward to see whether there’s a plausible reason to investigate a particular compound. That might also help separate something that looks interesting for general neurological or mitochondrial support from something with a reasonable connection to the tremor itself. Cerebrolysin would definitely send me down another research rabbit hole. 😂

One thing I’d keep in mind is how you’re defining the outcome you want from adding Tesa. “Visceral fat” is much more specific than simply watching body weight or the scale move. If that’s the reason for introducing it, I’d think ahead about how you plan to evaluate that particular outcome. Otherwise, with Reta already in the picture, you’ve introduced another variable and it can become very easy to attribute a change to whichever compound you’re paying the most attention to. I’m becoming increasingly fond of deciding what I’m measuring before I add the next variable.

Personally, I’ve found maintenance much more difficult than losing. Losing was a relatively straight shot toward a defined goal (pun intended 😂). I knew what I was aiming for, and things like dose, calorie intake, activity and macros could remain fairly consistent while I watched the trend. Maintenance has been much more fluid. I chose to remain on tirzepatide not simply for weight maintenance, but because of other benefits I experienced, particularly inflammation and pain control. So now I’m balancing several outcomes rather than chasing one number on the scale. And then you throw in a new variable. 😂 I recently worked on an energy stack and, once I finally honed in on the timing and amounts that worked for me, I wasn't expecting how much that would change the equation. My energy and activity changed, which meant some of the things I had already figured out for maintenance needed adjusting again. That’s probably been my biggest lesson. Maintenance isn't static. Change one variable and the balance can shift somewhere else. For me, it hasn’t been about finding the maintenance dose and calling it done. It’s been an ongoing process of adjusting as the variables change.

I’d consider the protocol 𝘣𝘦𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘥 dose alone. Route of administration, frequency, duration and timing can all matter, as does what you’re actually using Adamax for. If it’s new to you, I’d also try to isolate it as a variable rather than introducing it alongside several other changes. It makes it much easier to tell what it’s actually doing, or 𝗻𝗼𝘁 doing.

@Joe Castelli I’d look at several different sources rather than relying on a single protocol. Published research when it exists, clinical-trial dosing where applicable, and then the various commonly referenced protocols. You’ll quickly discover they don’t always agree. 😂 Ultimately you have to look at the evidence, understand what you’re trying to accomplish, and use your own judgment. If you’re completely new to a compound, starting low and assessing your response before increasing is generally the more conservative approach.