retatrutide is the most under-discussed thing on this board
retatrutide is the most under-discussed thing on this board — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it precisely in a bigger population and catches what phase 2 was too small to see. Treating them as the same tier of evidence is the recurring error here.
Went up slowly, deliberately, because everything on this board says the escalation is where trouble lives. Uneventful so far and I am not going to pretend that is a finding.
Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older molecules, simply because fewer members have paid for it. Fewer results means wider uncertainty, not a verdict.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Increases in heart rate have been reported across this receptor class. The magnitude and clinical significance are exactly what phase 3 is powered to establish.
Trial names corrected in the title. The phase 3 programme and the phase 2 readout are not the same thing.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
The fatigue profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
Careful with the rankings. A phase 2 result and a phase 3 result are not on the same evidential footing and cannot be listed in one table.
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
Watched heart rate on a wearable across twelve weeks because the threads said to. It moved a little and I have no idea whether that means anything.
Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure and with hepatic effects. That is a mechanistic story with strong preclinical support and limited phase 2 human data.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use, and that is a statement of fact rather than a disclaimer.
The phase 2 readout ran to 48 weeks in a few hundred participants with a slow escalation. Both the size and the duration matter when people quote the headline number.
Cosigning the escalation point. Almost every difficult report on this board is from somebody who went up quickly.
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
Has anyone posted an independent test on this compound recently?
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
- 1Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more…12 comments in this branch · started by u/rui_only_ro