is it normal to get muscle cramps at week 85
is it normal to get muscle cramps at week 85. Same spreadsheet I have been keeping since the start, nothing retrofitted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of constipation to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
The injection-site soreness profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
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.
Sent a vial to Medutest out of curiosity. Result was 97.5% against a claimed 97.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
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.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot host that and it should not want to.
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
Yes — the glucagon arm is what makes it a different proposition rather than a stronger version of the others.
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.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
[deleted]
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
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.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
- 1That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot…10 comments in this branch · started by u/source_or_silence