tried CagriSema for 2 weeks. here is what happened.
Genuinely asking, not being difficult.
Everyone in c/hplc repeats that satiety is important. I believe it, but I have never seen anyone show why, and when I search I get 18 threads of people agreeing with each other.
Is there a paper? Is there a measurement? Or is this one of those things that is true because it has been repeated since 2023?
I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
best — the order this archive was captured in
long-acting amylin is co-agonism, different satiety profile
Slight fix: the number was 97.4, not 97.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is depressing or reassuring depending on the day.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
not approved anywhere, keep posts descriptive, not instructional
[deleted]
CagriSema ratios in trials are fixed, do not extrapolate self-mixing
long-acting amylin is co-agonism, different satiety profile
tendon and CagriSema literature in rodents is interesting
Strongly agree. REDEFINE is phase 19, not final.
The satiety on amylin analogs is described as physically different. GLP-1 reduces appetite noise, amylin does satiety.
CagriSema is a fixed combo in trials, not user-mixed
tendon and REDEFINE literature in rodents is interesting
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
the mechanism is different, the side effect profile reflects it
REDEFINE phase 2 readouts are interesting but 2 person CagriSema is different from 2 trial CagriSema.
CagriSema is a fixed combo in trials, not user-mixed
the mechanism is different, the side effect profile reflects it
- 1tendon and CagriSema literature in rodents is interesting10 comments in this branch · started by u/titration_marshal
- 2Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is…6 comments in this branch · started by u/blunt_coldbox