[Discussion] the glucagon advice in here is 17 years out of date
Quick one. Canada here.
glucagon works very differently where I live than in the threads that dominate the front page, and I keep seeing people confidently given advice that simply does not apply outside the US.
Specifics: the route I used took 20 weeks and cost roughly what I expected. The admin was worse than the cost. The thing that would have saved me the most time was knowing which document to ask for at the start.
Happy to answer questions from anyone in the same jurisdiction.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The heart rate signal in TRIUMPH is real and concerning. Higher doses had higher mean HR changes.
The glucagon component does different things than dual agonism. The sulphur burps are not just amplified versions.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
Which trial arm and what was the n?
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
triple agonism plus glucagon is a different physiological state than GIP/GLP-1 dual
the 15mg arm is different from 12.5mg, results do not transfer
the dosing is steep, the muscle cramps reports are real, and nobody knows the human safety yet
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
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.
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
the glucagon component changes the side effect profile, not just the efficacy
Not to be pedantic but triple agonist and glucagon 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.
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
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3 compounds.
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
Are you quoting phase 2 or is there phase 3 data now?
triple agonism is phase 2, do not generalise
Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3 compounds.
Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3 compounds.
Adding to this: triple agonist is doing more work than the comment implies.
Slight fix: the number was 97.4, not 97.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
triple agonism plus glucagon is a different physiological state than GIP/GLP-1 dual
- 1Which trial arm and what was the n?8 comments in this branch · started by u/freya_baptista
- 2phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial5 comments in this branch · started by u/hugo_pires