[Discussion] can we stop arguing about phase 2 until somebody posts a number
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud.
The advice on TRIUMPH in this community changed substantially around the start of last year, and nobody went back and updated the older posts. So depending on which thread the search engine hands you, you get two contradictory answers with the same confidence.
I have listed what I think the current consensus is below. Correct me — that is the point of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes.
Adding to this: TRIUMPH is doing more work than the comment implies.
The glucagon component does different things than dual agonism. The the food-noise thing are not just amplified versions.
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
What was the dosing schedule in that arm?
the dosing is steep, the sulphur burps reports are real, and nobody knows the human safety yet
Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3 compounds.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
The heart rate signal in TRIUMPH is real and concerning. Higher doses had higher mean HR changes.
- 1Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3…5 comments in this branch · started by u/nadia_norgaard