retatrutide vs triple agonist — genuinely asking which matters more
Posting this because I searched for it and got nothing useful.
Setup: 1.7mg, week 30, sulphur burps present but not ruining anything. I changed exactly one variable — dose escalation — and tracked it for 22 weeks.
Result: a difference, but a small one, and well inside what I would call noise if someone else posted it. So I am putting it here rather than presenting it as a finding. If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something.
Not medical advice, obviously. This is one person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points.
Disagree on that part. 98.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points.
Disagree on that part. 97.9% and 97.6% on the same vial is normal.
Are you quoting phase 2 or is there phase 3 data now?
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
This is correct.
Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
Adding to this: TRIUMPH is doing more work than the comment implies.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 84 weeks to accept.
triple agonism is phase 2, do not generalise
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
What was the dosing schedule in that arm?
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
Research use material only, no human-use approval anywhere. Posts must describe what happened, not instruct strangers.
Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3 compounds.
Not to be pedantic but triple agonist and glucagon are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
- 1This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.11 comments in this branch · started by u/cagrilintide_enthusiast
- 2Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different…4 comments in this branch · started by u/kofi_balogun