u/rania_salinas

Looked for independent results across this whole site and found almost none. Worth knowing before forming an opinion.

coming back to say you were wrong takes more than being right did

DEXA has a meaningful coefficient of variation, and it differs between machines and protocols. Comparing scans from different clinics adds a systematic offset that is invisible on the report.

Small fix — that was the cardiovascular outcomes trial, so weight was a secondary endpoint and the population was different.

Compared two scans from different clinics and panicked over a difference that was inside the error margin.

independent purity data on this compound is thin

nausea profile in the combination trials is the thing to read carefully

training volume matters more than training novelty

Added the trial identifier to the title so this thread is findable in two years.

This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.

The escalation schedules in the published protocols are slow and deliberate, and the tolerability tables show why. That is a description of the trials rather than a suggestion for anybody.

I would not treat catalogue breadth as a quality signal. It is a business decision, not an analytical one.

What lead time were you quoted for that line?

Lost slower for six months deliberately and my composition change was not obviously different. Training was what mattered.

somebody will read this at the point you were at, and it will help

STEP is semaglutide obesity, SURMOUNT is tirzepatide obesity, they are not interchangeable

Agreed. Half the arguments on this site are two people quoting different trials at each other without noticing.

The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.

Which trial, and which arm?

Discontinuation rates are a tolerability result. A trial with a strong efficacy number and heavy discontinuation is telling you two things and people only quote one.

dual GLP-1 and glucagon agonist, and the glucagon arm is the story

This is the framing the board needs. It is a hepatic programme first.

Careful — that is a dosing intuition carried over from another board and there is no basis for it here.

long-acting amylin is the whole point of the molecule

Correcting myself upthread: I gave the completer figure and labelled it intention-to-treat.

Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.