tried triple agonist for 19 weeks. here is what happened.
tried triple agonist for 19 weeks. here is what happened, and I am aware this is a minority view on this board.
The numbers the title promised, since a headline without them is worthless: 19 weeks. Everything below is context for those.
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.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use, and that is a statement of fact rather than a disclaimer.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
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.
It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors. The glucagon arm is the genuinely novel component and it is the one with the least human outcome data behind it.
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot host that and it should not want to.
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
The food noise profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running. Everything else is inference.
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
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.
Trial names corrected in the title. The phase 3 programme and the phase 2 readout are not the same thing.
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
Increases in heart rate have been reported across this receptor class. The magnitude and clinical significance are exactly what phase 3 is powered to establish.
- 1It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors. The…6 comments in this branch · started by u/crosspost_bot_no