[Results] 21 weeks, 9kg, and plateau was the hard part
21 weeks, 9kg, and plateau was the hard part. Posting the boring middle of the process, because the internet is full of the start and the end and nothing else.
Numbers, in the order they matter: 21 weeks and 9kg.
STEP-1 ran 68 weeks and landed just under 15% mean body weight change on 2.4mg. It is an average of a wide distribution, not a target you have missed.
Weight change and appetite change are different endpoints on different timescales. Conflating them is where most of the confusion on this board starts.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The escalation schedule in the trials existed to keep people on the drug. It is a tolerability ramp, and it is why the label reads the way it does.
The escalation schedule in the trials existed to keep people on the drug.
ravi_bergstrom is describing the standard shape here and it matches the trial data better than most anecdotes do.
Retitled to match the body. The original promised a comparison the post does not make.
the ladder exists because the gut needs the time, not because the pharmacy likes paperwork
Small correction: 2.4mg is the maintenance ceiling on the label, not the starting maintenance dose. The distinction matters for anyone reading this later.
Did protein intake change in the same window?
sulphur burps made the first fortnight rough at each step up, then flattened out. Predictable enough that I started planning around it.
My stall was eleven weeks. Eleven. Then it moved again without me changing anything at all.
sulphur burps made the first fortnight rough at each step up, then flattened out.
This is the part I would underline for anyone skimming. Everything else in the thread is downstream of it.
On the "everybody ends up at 2.4" claim, which comes up every few weeks.
The escalation schedule in the trials was designed to get people to a fixed study dose. Real use is not a trial. The dose that keeps your appetite quiet with side effects you can live with is the dose, and for a lot of people on this board that has been 0.25mg for a very long time.
The counter-argument, which is fair: some people genuinely do need the top of the range, and staying low out of caution costs them months. That is a conversation with someone who knows your history, not with us.
Agreed, and the bit people skip is that the ladder is a tolerance ladder. It is not a potency ranking.
stalling at 0.25mg is information, not a verdict
Week 60: 29kg down, injection-site soreness basically gone since about week 10, and the honest headline is that nothing dramatic happened. It was boring and it worked.
The appetite thing was the surprise. I expected to feel full. What I got was simply not thinking about food between meals.
Careful. A four-week stall is inside normal variation and treating it as failure is how people escalate for no reason.
Does fatigue track the day after the shot, or is it there all week?
Are you measuring anything other than weight? Waist is usually the one that keeps moving.
The weekly interval comes out of the half-life — roughly a week — so you are on a smooth curve rather than a series of spikes. That is also why moving your day slightly does very little.
Delayed gastric emptying is most pronounced early and attenuates with continued dosing, which is why the nausea usually fades at a stable dose.
Delayed gastric emptying is most pronounced early and attenuates with continued dosing, which is why the nausea usually fades at a stable dose.
Right, and the timescale is the bit that keeps getting lost. Judge a step at a month, not at a weekend.
Steady state after a dose change takes four to five half-lives, so the fair judgement point on a new step is about a month, not four days.
STEP-1 averaged just under 15% at 68 weeks, so a 10% year is not a failure
- 1On the "everybody ends up at 2.4" claim, which comes up every few weeks. The…6 comments in this branch · started by u/endpoint_creep