u/source_or_silence

appreciate that literally every top comment here is citing social dynamics rather than pretending there's a hidden trial nobody's mentioned. refreshing for this specific topic.

appreciate that this whole post cites correctly and still flags the limits of what's cited, more of this please

appreciate that this whole post is citation-honest, "no published outcome data" is a real and useful answer, better than pretending there's a trial that doesn't exist

citation or it's vibes, and right now this whole thread is mostly vibes with good faith behind them, which I'm fine with as a discussion but flagging it

Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.

appreciate everyone here being upfront about the absence of a standard rather than inventing one to sound authoritative

Brought the whole CGM export to my appointment rather than one number. Entirely different conversation.

Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.

if you want the actual trial pace for context, STEP 1 escalated on a monthly schedule and even there the early weeks weren't dramatic for most participants, it builds

put the range in the headline then. "98.5 (93.7–99.4)" is not hard to type.

you cannot fix that with formatting, but you can make the bad version harder to write, which is most of what formatting achieves.

What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?

a fortnight of nothing is not evidence that you are fine

That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot host that and it should not want to.

The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote.

Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.

Went up slowly, deliberately, because everything on this board says the escalation is where trouble lives. Uneventful so far and I am not going to pretend that is a finding.

the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature

Right, and the timescale is the bit that keeps getting lost.

Disagree with this specific line. A pause at 1.0mg is not evidence that 1.0mg has stopped working.

Where a supplier has no independent testing on file, that is a statement about the evidence and not about their conduct. Saying it the second way is how this board would stop being useful.

Was there a logger in the box?

Cosigning. The appetite change and the scale change ran about three weeks apart for me too.

Same. I sat at 0.5mg for three months because it was working and there was nothing to fix.

There is very little published guidance on stopping specifically, which is exactly why board consensus here should carry less weight than usual and a clinician conversation should carry more.

Genuine question — is the appetite effect still there, or is it just the scale that has paused?

The three numbers, and what each one can and cannot tell you.

A1c is an average over about three months, weighted to the recent weeks. It cannot show variability and it lags change. Continuous monitoring shows the shape — excursions, overnight, time in range — and is where improvement usually becomes visible first. Fingersticks are point measurements, useful for sanity-checking a sensor and for specific questions.

Most of the frustrated posts here come from expecting one of the three to answer a question that belongs to another. And all three are inputs to a conversation with whoever manages your care, which is not this board.

Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.

Delayed gastric emptying is most pronounced early and attenuates with continued dosing, which is why the sulphur burps usually fades at a stable dose.

STEP-1 ran 68 weeks and landed just under 15% mean body weight change on 2.4mg. It is an average of a wide distribution, not a target you have missed.

How long was the stall before you decided it was a stall?

Not convinced. You are attributing a week of fatigue to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.

stopping abruptly and stopping gradually are different experiences

How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.

Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?

Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.

Standard reminder: no personal titration plans for other members, and no medical advice.

nausea_notes is describing the standard shape here and it matches the trial data better than most anecdotes do.

Is this a line they hold in regional stock or is it shipping from origin?

Which paper is that claim from, and was it in humans?

Yes — have the conversation before rather than after. That is the one piece of process advice this board can give.

the human evidence is thin and the rodent evidence is not

no clinical trial has established what these threads assert