retatrutide — my 13-week log, condensed into one table
Been lurking in c/sideeffects for about 12 months and finally have something worth posting.
Short version: week 74, 1.0mg, and triple agonist is the bit I still cannot get a straight answer on. I have read the wiki, I have read the last 13 threads, and the answers split roughly down the middle.
What I actually want to know is whether the people saying it does not matter have measured it, or whether it is just repeated confidently. Happy to be told I am overthinking this — I probably am — but I would rather overthink it now than at week 80.
best — the order this archive was captured in
What was the dosing schedule in that arm?
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
TRIUMPH data is phase 2, not phase 3, smaller n and shorter
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3 compounds.
nobody should be giving this to anyone without extensive monitoring
heart rate and dose escalation need actual measurements, not impressions
TRIUMPH data is phase 2, not phase 3, smaller n and shorter
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
Tracking number removed.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the weight curves are unusually steep, which makes predicting individual response harder
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 13 weeks to accept.
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
the glucagon component changes the side effect profile, not just the efficacy
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
The glucagon component does different things than dual agonism. The sulphur burps are not just amplified versions.
That is net peptide content, not purity.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the weight curves are unusually steep, which makes predicting individual response harder
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
- 1What was the dosing schedule in that arm?8 comments in this branch · started by u/injection_site_iris
- 2You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.6 comments in this branch · started by u/kavya_kravchenko