22 months in and triple agonist is still the thing I get wrong
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 31 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
The glucagon component does different things than dual agonism. The sulphur burps are not just amplified versions.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
TRIUMPH phase 2 showed 99.1% weight loss but the injection-site soreness profile on the highest arm was rough. Phase 2 != phase 3.
TRIUMPH phase 2 showed 99.1% weight loss but the injection-site soreness profile on the highest arm was rough.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 89 weeks to accept.
The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after first puncture, and that comes from the preservative, not the peptide.
Did you actually measure heart rate or is that a feeling?
TRIUMPH data is phase 2, not phase 3, smaller n and shorter
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
Adding to this: dose escalation is doing more work than the comment implies.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
the 15mg arm is different from 12.5mg, results do not transfer
- 1The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after…7 comments in this branch · started by u/reflux_report