tirzepatide: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1
tirzepatide: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1. This is a description of what happened to me and not a plan for anybody else.
20kg over 46 weeks, never went past 10mg, and constipation stayed mild the whole way. Posting because the loud threads are all 15mg.
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.
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
Trial identifiers corrected in the title. SURMOUNT and SURPASS are different programmes.
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.
What step are you on and how long have you been there?
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 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.
Not sure that follows. You went up a step and changed your training in the same fortnight.
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.
Pen or vial? The step sizes available differ and it changes this answer.
week 7 is early to draw any conclusion at all
Small fix: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme, SURPASS is the type-2 programme. They are different endpoints and the numbers do not transfer.
Small fix: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme, SURPASS is the type-2 programme.
Saving this one. It is the clearest statement of the stall problem I have read here.
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 reflux profile is genuinely gentler than people expect coming from sema
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.
sulphur burps are the signature complaint and they are not dangerous
Correction to my own post above — I said 12.5mg and I have been on 10mg since the spring. Same argument, wrong number.
Week 54 was the first time the scale moved after a five-week stall. I changed nothing in that window.
2.5 is the starter dose and it is not meant to be the dose that works
the appetite effect is blunter than sema, in a good way, most weeks
SURMOUNT-1 landed around 21% at 72 weeks on the top arm
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.
- 1week 7 is early to draw any conclusion at all8 comments in this branch · started by u/curious_panel_only
- 2Trial identifiers corrected in the title. SURMOUNT and SURPASS are different…7 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy