[Question] New Zealand — has anyone got a straight answer on dose escalation
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 23 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 35 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
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
Research use material only, no human-use approval anywhere. Posts must describe what happened, not instruct strangers.
Research use material only, no human-use approval anywhere.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 3 weeks to accept.
the weight curves are unusually steep, which makes predicting individual response harder
Did you actually measure heart rate or is that a feeling?
the 0.5mg arm is different from 2.4mg, results do not transfer
Are you quoting phase 2 or is there phase 3 data now?
the 15mg arm is different from 12.5mg, results do not transfer
the 5mg arm is different from 7.5mg, results do not transfer
The heart rate signal in TRIUMPH is real and concerning. Higher doses had higher mean HR changes.
the dosing is steep, the constipation reports are real, and nobody knows the human safety yet
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
Small correction: the trial was 16 weeks, not 11. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
Mechanistically the bit that matters is TRIUMPH. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
nobody should be giving this to anyone without extensive monitoring
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
- 1the 0.5mg arm is different from 2.4mg, results do not transfer11 comments in this branch · started by u/bilal_osei
- 2Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.5 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy