survodutide vs glucagon — genuinely asking which matters more
Confession thread, sort of.
I went from 15mg to 7.5mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 13 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 early fullness I did not need and a data point I cannot interpret. Two lessons in one.
Posting it in the hope that somebody at week 13 reads it before doing the same thing.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Yeah, glucagon co-agonism is genuinely different.
Yeah, glucagon co-agonism is genuinely different.
Adding to this: hepatic fat is doing more work than the comment implies.
Which trial arm?
phase 8 data is interesting, phase 28 will be different
phase 16 data is interesting, phase 21 will be different
Yeah, glucagon co-agonism is genuinely different.
This is correct. Do not generalise from tirzepatide.
do not generalise from tirzepatide
the MASH indication changes the risk calculus
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
the safety profile is not just tirzepatide amplified
The early fullness was genuinely awful for three weeks and then simply stopped. I know that is not useful information, but it is what happened.
do not generalise from tirzepatide
Strongly agree. The safety story is separate.
Yeah, glucagon co-agonism is genuinely different.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 77 weeks to accept.
Small correction: the trial was 23 weeks, not 25. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
hepatic fat and survodutide are the story
This is correct. Do not generalise from tirzepatide.
Not to be pedantic but dual agonist and hepatic fat are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
do not generalise from tirzepatide
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
the safety profile is not just tirzepatide amplified
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points.
Disagree on that part. 97.4% and 97.6% on the same vial is normal.
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
Hepatic fat or MASH or what?
the safety profile is not just tirzepatide amplified
MASH claims need the trial and the biopsy endpoint
- 1Yeah, glucagon co-agonism is genuinely different.13 comments in this branch · started by u/customs_seizure_sid
- 2Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different…7 comments in this branch · started by u/joaquin_ivaturi