Just when I thought it was safe to be confident in my overdosing thesis I found this study (link below) suggesting that the greater the initial flu like symptoms (acute-phase reaction (APR)) to Reclast the more effective it seems to be in reducing fractures. BMD was not changed but somehow the greater reduction in fractures was in those who had the initial unpleasant and unwanted symptoms that everyone is trying to figure out how to avoid.

I'm not at all throwing out the idea that the dosing of Reclast is too high and too inflexible but, well,
the world is just so complicated. And of course this one paper is not proof positive by any means that more acute phase reaction is better, but it is definitely something to think about. The authors are quite reasonable and do not claim this to be "proven fact". I used to wonder about the same thing with covid shots - if I didn't have a reaction could I trust it was taking effect? Not to worry there as I typically had a day or so of feeling lousy.
Note that there is no discussion of the various long term bad reactions to Reclast that are talked about on forums. This is strictly in regard to those initial flu like symptoms.

Their summary suggests it may help those with an unpleasant 3-5 days after the infusion to know that they are getting extra benefit. They did not try to say those without reactions were not getting good benefit.

If you followed this logic you might forgo those efforts to mute reactions to Reclast like using Tylenol and Claritin. Though you certainly wouldn't forgo extra hydration because that's to help protect the kidneys. I'm not recommending this but just noting that if this were proven to be correct it might require rethinking a number of things.
BTW, one of the this papers authors (Ian Reid) was also an author for two of the papers about dosing of Reclast that this thread started with. Here's this new paper:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jbmr.4434