[Titration] 12 weeks per step is not too slow, it is just unfashionable
The title is the argument: 12 weeks per step is not too slow, it is just unfashionable. Here is the rest of it.
Pulling the figures out of the title: 12 weeks. All of it is written down as it happened rather than reconstructed.
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.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
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.
Cosigning the four-week thing. It is a minimum interval, and treating it as a schedule to keep up with is how people end up miserable at 12.5.
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.
Held 7.5 for five months. Everyone kept asking when I was going to 10. The answer was never, because 7.5 was working.
the trials titrated on a calendar, real people titrate on symptoms
Agreed, and the trial number is a mean of a very wide distribution — the tails are enormous and nobody posts from the middle.
Same experience with the appetite effect being flatter across the week rather than front-loaded.
This matches mine. Milder muscle cramps than I expected, and what there was settled inside a fortnight of each step.
Trial identifiers corrected in the title. SURMOUNT and SURPASS are different programmes.
if 7.5 is working, 10 is not automatically better
Which week did the appetite change actually land for you?
the appetite effect is blunter than sema, in a good way, most weeks
hold the dose that works, the ladder is not a leaderboard
the four-week step schedule is the label, not folklore
Do muscle cramps follow the day after the shot, or is it spread across the week?
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.
Week 88 was the first time the scale moved after a five-week stall. I changed nothing in that window.
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.
sulphur burps are the signature complaint and they are not dangerous
Disagree with the conversion table. There is no validated equivalence between the two molecules and posting one as though there is does real damage.
switching from sema is not a dose conversion, there is no clean equivalence
Did you come to this from sema, and if so how long was the gap?
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.
zepbound and mounjaro are the same compound with different labels
- 1SURMOUNT-1 ran 72 weeks with the top arm around 21% mean body weight change.…8 comments in this branch · started by u/tarek_kirchner
- 2The distribution matters more than the mean. In the trial population the…6 comments in this branch · started by u/spain_receta