am I the only one who found triple agonist harder than the injections
Confession thread, sort of.
I went from 0.25mg to 10mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 14 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway.
So now I have constipation I did not need and a data point I cannot interpret. Two lessons in one.
Posting it in the hope that somebody at week 43 reads it before doing the same thing.
best — the order this archive was captured in
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
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.
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is depressing or reassuring depending on the day.
This is correct. Triple agonism is genuinely different.
TRIUMPH data is phase 2, not phase 3, smaller n and shorter
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
The glucagon component does different things than dual agonism. The early fullness are not just amplified versions.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
No.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the 12.5mg arm is different from 15mg, results do not transfer
Dose escalation on retatrutide is steeper and faster than on semaglutide. Do not assume the titration patterns transfer.
Yeah, phase 2 retatrutide is interesting but it is not comparable to phase 3 compounds.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Slight fix: the number was 97.6, not 97.9. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Slight fix: the number was 97.6, not 97.9.
Disagree on that part. 98.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
- 1source?6 comments in this branch · started by u/nikhil_asante
- 2research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols5 comments in this branch · started by u/hassan_nilsen