[Trial Data] TRIUMPH timeline — what we actually know vs what gets repeated
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: glucagon matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 20 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 19 people measuring the same thing the same way. I have started; my numbers are below. They lean one way but not strongly enough for me to declare victory.
If you have data, post the data. If you have an opinion, flair it as an opinion.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
Disagree on that part. 98.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
heart rate and dose escalation need actual measurements, not impressions
Research use material only, no human-use approval anywhere. Posts must describe what happened, not instruct strangers.
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
the glucagon component changes the side effect profile, not just the efficacy
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
Are you quoting phase 2 or is there phase 3 data now?
nobody should be giving this to anyone without extensive monitoring
Not to be pedantic but retatrutide and dose escalation are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3 compounds.
Dose escalation on retatrutide is steeper and faster than on semaglutide. Do not assume the titration patterns transfer.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
What was the dosing schedule in that arm?
the 2.4mg arm is different from 0.5mg, results do not transfer
TRIUMPH data is phase 2, not phase 3, smaller n and shorter
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3 compounds.
triple agonism plus glucagon is a different physiological state than GIP/GLP-1 dual
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
the glucagon component changes the side effect profile, not just the efficacy
- 1Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next…16 comments in this branch · started by u/reta_and_regret
- 2Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.5 comments in this branch · started by u/nadia_norgaard