dual agonist — my 18-week log, condensed into one table
Something I keep coming back to: dual agonist — my 18-week log, condensed into one table.
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.
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.
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.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Disagree with the conversion table. There is no validated equivalence between the two molecules and posting one as though there is does real damage.
I would separate the two claims. That the GIP arm exists is uncontroversial; that it explains your muscle cramps pattern is a guess.
The step schedule question, answered properly, because it comes up weekly.
The label sets a minimum interval of four weeks between increases. That is a floor on how fast you may go, and it exists because tolerability, not efficacy, is what limits most people. There is nothing in the pharmacology that says you must increase at four weeks, or at eight, or ever.
What decides it in practice is whether the effect you want is still there. If appetite is quiet and the trend is going the right way, the dose is doing its job. If both have genuinely gone flat for six weeks or more, that is a conversation worth having with someone who knows your history.
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.
The distribution matters more than the mean.
Saving this one. It is the clearest statement of the stall problem I have read here.
Careful with "everyone tolerates it better". The people it did not suit stop posting, which makes this board look calmer than the drug is.
switching from sema is not a dose conversion, there is no clean equivalence
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.
week 4 is early to draw any conclusion at all
Appetite effect for me is flat across seven days. On sema it was a wave. Same person, different molecule.
Appetite effect for me is flat across seven days.
marit_sandvik is right that the two molecules are not interchangeable. There is no published conversion and the ones circulating are invented.
The 21% figure is a 72-week mean on the highest arm. Quoting it as what someone should expect by week 27 is not a fair reading.
Correction to my own post above — I said 15mg and I have been on 2.5mg since the spring. Same argument, wrong number.
the appetite effect is blunter than sema, in a good way, most weeks
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.
Which week did the appetite change actually land for you?