[Lab] split one vial across PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate — 98.4% and 97.2%
Posting this because the title is the whole finding — split one vial across PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate — 98.4% and 97.2% — and a number without its method is a rumour.
98.4% and 97.2%. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour.
The distribution matters more than the mean. In the trial population the interquartile spread was wide enough that two honest people can have completely different runs on the same arm.
Held 7.5 for five months. Everyone kept asking when I was going to 10. The answer was never, because 7.5 was working.
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
This is the fifth "should I go up" post today and they are all welcome — but no member here can answer it for you.
This is the fifth "should I go up" post today and they are all welcome — but no member here can answer it for you.
quiet_moderator is right that the two molecules are not interchangeable. There is no published conversion and the ones circulating are invented.
[removed by moderator]
It is a dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist, and the GIP arm is the part that has no equivalent in the semaglutide threads. That is why the side-effect profile reads differently rather than just milder.
the appetite effect is blunter than sema, in a good way, most weeks
Vials and pens carry the same molecule; what differs is fill volume, device tolerance and whether you are doing your own arithmetic. Neither is inherently more accurate.
The four-week interval in the label is a minimum. Nothing about the pharmacology requires you to step on schedule, and the trials stepped on a calendar because trials have to.
Sulphur burps for the first eight days after each step, then nothing. Predictable enough that I planned my week around it.
Weekly dosing again, half-life in the same neighbourhood as sema, so a step change takes about a month to reach steady state. Judging a new step at day five is judging noise.
the trials titrated on a calendar, real people titrate on symptoms
the trials titrated on a calendar, real people titrate on symptoms
Not sure about this bit. The GIP arm being real does not tell you that it is what caused your particular week.
Agree. The GIP component is the interesting half and it barely gets discussed outside c/glp1science.
the muscle cramps profile is genuinely gentler than people expect coming from sema
Push back: "gentler than sema" is a population statement. Plenty of people on this board have the opposite experience and they are not doing it wrong.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. Anything in this thread about how a research vial "should" titrate is a discussion about chemistry, not a plan.
Are you comparing yourself with the trial mean or with the people who post the most?
Week 74 was the first time the scale moved after a five-week stall. I changed nothing in that window.
week 3 is early to draw any conclusion at all
Came off sema and onto tirz with a two-week gap. The first month was flat and I assumed I had made a mistake. Month two it moved.
SURMOUNT-1 ran 72 weeks with the top arm around 21% mean body weight change. SURPASS is the diabetes programme and reports glycaemic endpoints, so quoting the two interchangeably is a category error.
Yes. I stepped to 12.5 because the calendar said so, not because anything needed fixing, and I regretted it for a fortnight.
SURMOUNT-1 landed around 21% at 72 weeks on the top arm
The 21% figure is a 72-week mean on the highest arm. Quoting it as what someone should expect by week 86 is not a fair reading.
Not sure that follows. You went up a step and changed your training in the same fortnight.
hold the dose that works, the ladder is not a leaderboard
dual agonist, so the GIP arm is doing something the sema threads will not tell you about
That percentage is body weight change, not body fat. Different measurement, and the distinction gets lost every time.
switching from sema is not a dose conversion, there is no clean equivalence
a lot of people plateau nicely at 10mg and never need 15
switching from sema is not a dose conversion, there is no clean equivalence
Agreed, with one qualifier: that is the mean of the top arm and the spread around it was enormous.
- 1Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. Anything in this…11 comments in this branch · started by u/endpoint_creep
- 2This is the fifth "should I go up" post today and they are all welcome — but…7 comments in this branch · started by u/quiet_moderator