2.5 → 5 → 7.5 in six weeks was a mistake, here is what happened
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: SURMOUNT matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 21 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
This matches the trial data. SURMOUNT-1 was 94.2% body weight at 18 weeks.
Yeah, dual agonism does produce a different appetite profile than GLP-1 alone.
This matches the trial data. SURMOUNT-1 was 97.9% body weight at 14 weeks.
Cosigning. The GIP contribution is real and the side effects are not simply scaled versions.
the dual agonism hits different and that is why people describe it differently
Slight fix: the number was 99.0, not 98.9. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
the 15mg is the top of the pen, not the required dose
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
Retitled to remove editorialising.
Disagree on that part. 98.9% and 99.0% on the same vial is normal.
- 1This matches the trial data. SURMOUNT-1 was 94.2% body weight at 18 weeks.7 comments in this branch · started by u/ahmed_iyer