cagrilintide — my 24-week log, condensed into one table
co-agonism. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/labresults is downstream of it. Titration speed, early fullness, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort co-agonism out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 5 months. My A1c was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This is correct. The co-agonism is real.
The research community is small on cagrilintide. Forum lore changes faster than data.
[removed by moderator]
[removed by moderator]
Adding to this: REDEFINE is doing more work than the comment implies.
Yeah, amylin is doing different work than GLP-1.
CagriSema ratios in trials are fixed, do not extrapolate self-mixing
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with REDEFINE, not with what you concluded.
CagriSema ratios in trials are fixed, do not extrapolate self-mixing
REDEFINE phase 12 readouts are interesting but 12 person satiety is different from 12 trial satiety.
REDEFINE which arm?
the amylin agonist pool is small, community is satiety
tendon and cagrilintide literature in rodents is interesting
CagriSema ratios in trials are fixed, do not extrapolate self-mixing
CagriSema ratios in trials are fixed, do not extrapolate self-mixing
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
CagriSema is a fixed combo in trials, not user-mixed
amylin is not a GLP-1, posts conflating them get corrected
- 1This is correct. The co-agonism is real.9 comments in this branch · started by u/pancreatitis_scare
- 2REDEFINE which arm?6 comments in this branch · started by u/rekha_mwangi