glucagon vs TRIUMPH — genuinely asking which matters more
Posting this because I searched for it and got nothing useful. Setup: 1.7mg, week 64, injection-site soreness present but not ruining anything. I changed exactly one variable — dose escalation — and tracked it for 15 weeks. Result: a difference, but a small one, and well inside what I would call noise if someone else…
Which trial arm and what was the n?
the glucagon component changes the side effect profile, not just the efficacy
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
the weight curves are unusually steep, which makes predicting individual response harder
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
Did you actually measure heart rate or is that a feeling?
the dosing is steep, the injection-site soreness reports are real, and nobody knows the human safety yet
TRIUMPH data is phase 2, not phase 3, smaller n and shorter
Which trial arm and what was the n?
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.