am I the only one who found triple agonist harder than the injections
Slightly embarrassed to be asking this, but: am I the only one who found triple agonist harder than the injections.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. That is not a legal formality on this board — it is why there is so little independent data, why the escalation schedules people post are invented, and why nobody here can answer a dosing question.
What this board can usefully do is read the published trials carefully, log independent purity results, and be honest about how thin the evidence base is. Everything else belongs somewhere with a clinician in it.
What the glucagon arm is doing, as best anyone can say from public data.
GLP-1 and GIP agonism cover appetite and insulin secretion in ways that are now reasonably well characterised. Glucagon receptor agonism is the third leg and it is associated with increased energy expenditure and with effects on hepatic fat.
Mechanistically that is why this compound reads as a different proposition rather than a stronger version of a dual agonist. Clinically, the size and durability of that difference in humans is precisely what is not yet established, and anyone telling you otherwise is filling a gap with confidence.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
Small fix — three receptors, not two.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
Sent a vial to PeptideMeter out of curiosity. Result was 98.9% against a claimed 98.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
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.
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of muscle cramps to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
Disagree.
blunt_coldbox_2024 is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
Removed the escalation schedule. There is no published protocol for members to follow and inventing one here is exactly what this board does not do.
Removed the escalation schedule.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
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.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
small trial, big effect, wide error bars
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
The muscle cramps profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
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.
- 1Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and…10 comments in this branch · started by u/nikhil_lindqvist
- 2What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?10 comments in this branch · started by u/cagrilintide_enthusiast