survodutide vs glucagon — genuinely asking which matters more
Confession thread, sort of. I went from 15mg to 7.5mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 13 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway. So now I have early…
Yeah, glucagon co-agonism is genuinely different.
This is correct. Do not generalise from tirzepatide.
do not generalise from tirzepatide
the MASH indication changes the risk calculus
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
the safety profile is not just tirzepatide amplified
The early fullness was genuinely awful for three weeks and then simply stopped. I know that is not useful information, but it is what happened.
do not generalise from tirzepatide
Strongly agree. The safety story is separate.
Yeah, glucagon co-agonism is genuinely different.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 77 weeks to accept.
Small correction: the trial was 23 weeks, not 25. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
hepatic fat and survodutide are the story