switched from 2.5mg to 10mg and the early fullness got better, not worse
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 8 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 27 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
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3 compounds.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
Which trial arm and what was the n?
triple agonism plus glucagon is a different physiological state than GIP/GLP-1 dual
[deleted]
What was the dosing schedule in that arm?
the dosing is steep, the the food-noise thing reports are real, and nobody knows the human safety yet
the dosing is steep, the the food-noise thing reports are real, and nobody knows the human safety yet
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
Dose escalation on retatrutide is steeper and faster than on semaglutide. Do not assume the titration patterns transfer.
Dose escalation on retatrutide is steeper and faster than on semaglutide.
Disagree on that part. 98.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3 compounds.
Research use material only, no human-use approval anywhere. Posts must describe what happened, not instruct strangers.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
The heart rate signal in TRIUMPH is real and concerning. Higher doses had higher mean HR changes.
Research use material only, no human-use approval anywhere.
Adding to this: dose escalation is doing more work than the comment implies.
nobody should be giving this to anyone without extensive monitoring
nobody should be giving this to anyone without extensive monitoring
Disagree on that part. 99.0% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
Adding to this: triple agonist is doing more work than the comment implies.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
triple agonism is phase 2, do not generalise
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
Research use material only, no human-use approval anywhere. Posts must describe what happened, not instruct strangers.
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
triple agonism is TRIUMPH, do not generalise
- 1Which trial arm and what was the n?10 comments in this branch · started by u/lina_bruun
- 2this is the third time this week and i love it every time8 comments in this branch · started by u/signe_villalobos