dose escalation: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1
Confession thread, sort of.
I went from 5mg to 1.7mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 10 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway.
So now I have injection-site soreness I did not need and a data point I cannot interpret. Two lessons in one.
Posting it in the hope that somebody at week 22 reads it before doing the same thing.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
Strongly agree.
Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 99.2% on the same vial is normal.
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
The heart rate signal in TRIUMPH is real and concerning. Higher doses had higher mean HR changes.
The heart rate signal in TRIUMPH is real and concerning.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
Are you quoting phase 2 or is there phase 3 data now?
triple agonism is phase 2, do not generalise
The glucagon component does different things than dual agonism. The injection-site soreness are not just amplified versions.
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.
the 7.5mg arm is different from 0.25mg, results do not transfer
TRIUMPH data is phase 2, not phase 3, smaller n and shorter
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
triple agonism is phase 2, do not generalise
No.
Disagree on that part. 96.8% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
- 1No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot…7 comments in this branch · started by u/jarno_cabrera
- 2The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a…6 comments in this branch · started by u/iman_castellanos