TRIUMPH: what the trials say vs what this community says
Right, the triple agonist question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 10 data points over 30 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 27, not week 76. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
nobody should be giving this to anyone without extensive monitoring
[deleted]
[deleted]
Disagree on that part. 99.2% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
Slight fix: the number was 98.7, not 97.6. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
the glucagon component changes the side effect profile, not just the efficacy
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
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
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
Adding to this: glucagon is doing more work than the comment implies.
the 10mg arm is different from 1.0mg, results do not transfer
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
the 10mg arm is different from 1.0mg, results do not transfer
Disagree on that part. 99.3% and 93.7% on the same vial is normal.
The glucagon component does different things than dual agonism. The nausea are not just amplified versions.
Not to be pedantic but dose escalation and retatrutide are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
Not to be pedantic but triple agonist and retatrutide are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
Strongly agree.
Adding to this: dose escalation is doing more work than the comment implies.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
Slight fix: the number was 96.8, not 97.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Slight fix: the number was 96.8, not 97.2.
Adding to this: TRIUMPH is doing more work than the comment implies.
nobody should be giving this to anyone without extensive monitoring
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
Did you actually measure heart rate or is that a feeling?
- 1Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.8 comments in this branch · started by u/rohan_cardoso
- 2retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as…7 comments in this branch · started by u/aa_analysis_andy