my A1c moved and I cannot work out whether phase 2 is why
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking retatrutide against eGFR for 31 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
[removed by moderator]
triple agonism is phase 2, do not generalise
the glucagon component changes the side effect profile, not just the efficacy
the dosing is steep, the nausea reports are real, and nobody knows the human safety yet
the glucagon component changes the side effect profile, not just the efficacy
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
heart rate and dose escalation need actual measurements, not impressions
the glucagon component changes the side effect profile, not just the efficacy
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 52 weeks to accept.
the weight curves are unusually steep, which makes predicting individual response harder
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
The heart rate signal in TRIUMPH is real and concerning. Higher doses had higher mean HR changes.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
The glucagon component does different things than dual agonism. The nausea are not just amplified versions.
the dosing is steep, the sulphur burps reports are real, and nobody knows the human safety yet
the 7.5mg arm is different from 5mg, results do not transfer
the weight curves are unusually steep, which makes predicting individual response harder
nobody should be giving this to anyone without extensive monitoring
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
triple agonism is glucagon, do not generalise
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3 compounds.
- 1I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry…13 comments in this branch · started by u/nordic_pricing
- 2This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.8 comments in this branch · started by u/halima_mbeki