[Meta] the GIP rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining
Putting this to the board: the GIP rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining.
On comparing yourself with the trial number.
SURMOUNT-1 reported roughly 21% mean body weight change at 72 weeks on the highest arm. Three things get dropped every time that figure is quoted here. It is a mean, and the distribution around it is very wide. It is 72 weeks, which is a year and a half. And it is a trial population with trial support, which is not the same as a person with a spreadsheet.
Use it as a rough shape, not a benchmark. A 12% year is inside the ordinary range and people quit over it every week on this board.
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.
Week 24 was the first time the scale moved after a five-week stall. I changed nothing in that window.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Same experience with the appetite effect being flatter across the week rather than front-loaded.
the four-week step schedule is the label, not folklore
pens and vials are the same molecule, the price is the difference
This matches mine. Milder injection-site soreness than I expected, and what there was settled inside a fortnight of each step.
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.
Pen or vial? The step sizes available differ and it changes this answer.
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.
zepbound and mounjaro are the same compound with different labels
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.
Small fix: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme, SURPASS is the type-2 programme. They are different endpoints and the numbers do not transfer.
The 21% figure is a 72-week mean on the highest arm. Quoting it as what someone should expect by week 10 is not a fair reading.
a lot of people plateau nicely at 10mg and never need 15
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.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Agreed, with one qualifier: that is the mean of the top arm and the spread around it was enormous.
Agree. The GIP component is the interesting half and it barely gets discussed outside c/glp1science.
Correction to my own post above — I said 10mg and I have been on 12.5mg since the spring. Same argument, wrong number.
I would separate the two claims. That the GIP arm exists is uncontroversial; that it explains your muscle cramps pattern is a guess.
the injection-site soreness profile is genuinely gentler than people expect coming from sema
- 1The distribution matters more than the mean. In the trial population the…7 comments in this branch · started by u/sten_palacios