anyone else notice glucagon kicking in around week 51
Check-in as promised in the title: anyone else notice glucagon kicking in around week 51.
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.
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.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
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.
Has anyone posted an independent test on this compound recently?
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
heart rate is the thing people report watching
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running. Everything else is inference.
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.
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
The early fullness profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
Removed the escalation schedule. There is no published protocol for members to follow and inventing one here is exactly what this board does not do.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
Removed the escalation schedule.
reta_and_regret is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
What the glucagon arm is doing, as best anyone can say from public data.
GLP-1 and GIP agonism cover appetite and insulin secretion in ways that are now reasonably well characterised. Glucagon receptor agonism is the third leg and it is associated with increased energy expenditure and with effects on hepatic fat.
Mechanistically that is why this compound reads as a different proposition rather than a stronger version of a dual agonist. Clinically, the size and durability of that difference in humans is precisely what is not yet established, and anyone telling you otherwise is filling a gap with confidence.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
small trial, big effect, wide error bars
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
- 1Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to…11 comments in this branch · started by u/yara_lindholm
- 2Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure…9 comments in this branch · started by u/emil_agyeman