GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Archived. This submission is more than a year old. Votes and new comments are closed, and some of the advice in it may have been superseded — check the community wiki for the current version.
2.3k
c/retatrutide·posted 2 years ago by u/discount_math_dm

is it normal to get sulphur burps at week 24

Discussion Cold Box ×9 Slow Clap ×1

is it normal to get sulphur burps at week 24. Full detail below, and I have tried to keep the editorialising out of it.

The phase 2 readout ran to 48 weeks in a few hundred participants with a slow escalation. Both the size and the duration matter when people quote the headline number.

Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure and with hepatic effects. That is a mechanistic story with strong preclinical support and limited phase 2 human data.

If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.

3,229 up / 961 down77% upvoted60 commentsid 1a7u2918 Jan 2024

60 comments

30 in this archive, depth 4

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/nabila_bakken282 points·2 years ago

Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it precisely in a bigger population and catches what phase 2 was too small to see. Treating them as the same tier of evidence is the recurring error here.

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]105 points·2 years ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/discount_math_dmOP43 points·2 years ago

Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?

replysharereportpermalink
u/liver_enzyme_liz12 points·2 years ago

Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.

replysharereportpermalink
u/hassan_nilsen-4 points·2 years ago

phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label

replysharereportpermalink
u/discount_math_dmOP1 point·2 years ago

phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label

Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.

replysharereportpermalink
u/endotoxin_elliemicro1 point·2 years ago·edited

Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.

This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.

replysharereportpermalink
u/sofia_wikstrom1 point·2 years ago

Careful with the rankings. A phase 2 result and a phase 3 result are not on the same evidential footing and cannot be listed in one table.

replysharereportpermalink
u/emil_wojcik0 points·2 years ago

Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older molecules, simply because fewer members have paid for it. Fewer results means wider uncertainty, not a verdict.

replysharereportpermalink
u/soren_nkemelu1 point·2 years ago

Watched heart rate on a wearable across twelve weeks because the threads said to. It moved a little and I have no idea whether that means anything.

replysharereportpermalink
u/kavya_kravchenko137 points·2 years ago

Has anyone posted an independent test on this compound recently?

replysharereportpermalink
u/careful_gradient3277 points·2 years ago

Has anyone posted an independent test on this compound recently?

Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.

replysharereportpermalink
u/janek_ferrari20 points·2 years ago

wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings

replysharereportpermalink
u/bilal_osei6 points·2 years ago

comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things

replysharereportpermalink
u/discount_math_dmOP81 points·2 years ago

Sent a vial to Janoshik out of curiosity. Result was 98.4% against a claimed 97.5%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.

replysharereportpermalink
u/bastian_ekstrom50 points·2 years ago

Sent a vial to Janoshik out of curiosity.

discount_math_dm is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.

replysharereportpermalink
u/trialwatch_theoMOD57 points·2 years ago

Trial names corrected in the title. The phase 3 programme and the phase 2 readout are not the same thing.

replysharereportpermalink
u/incretin_ivypharmacology62 points·2 years ago

Cosigning the escalation point. Almost every difficult report on this board is from somebody who went up quickly.

replysharereportpermalink
u/solene_ilunga36 points·2 years ago

Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.

replysharereportpermalink
u/honest_syringe_202516 points·2 years ago

Yes — the glucagon arm is what makes it a different proposition rather than a stronger version of the others.

replysharereportpermalink
u/careful_gradient3230 points·2 years ago·edited

Cosigning the escalation point.

Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.

replysharereportpermalink
u/baseline_drifteranalytical24 points·2 years ago

Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (1) →
u/freya_baptista46 points·2 years ago

Went up slowly, deliberately, because everything on this board says the escalation is where trouble lives. Uneventful so far and I am not going to pretend that is a finding.

replysharereportpermalink
u/crosspost_bot_no65 points·2 years ago

Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rosa_almeida46 points·2 years ago

Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.

replysharereportpermalink
u/reta_and_regret11 points·2 years ago

the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently

replysharereportpermalink
u/ismael_eriksen6 points·2 years ago

How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.

replysharereportpermalink
u/ferran_krastev3 points·2 years ago

the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (1) →
Permalinked branches
Deep branches get their own page so a single reply chain can be linked and read on its own.
About c/retatrutide

Retatrutide: GIP/GLP-1/glucagon triple agonism, the TRIUMPH programme, and the fact that most people discussing it are handling research-grade material with no human-use approval anywhere. Dose-response, heart-rate signal, and the unusually steep phase-2 weight curves get argued about here weekly.

65kmembers
130submissions
Sep 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.com
c/retatrutide rules
  1. Retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use. Posts must not read as usage instructions.
  2. Phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers. Cite the trial and the dose arm.
  3. Heart-rate and dose-escalation reports need actual measurements, not impressions.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Moderators
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.