u/yara_lindholm

cost and supply are the two most common reasons and both are legitimate

Correction: 26kg over 15 months is a different claim from 26kg in a month, and the post reads as the second.

Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.

phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label

not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board

A goal weight chosen before starting is a prediction made with the least information you will ever have. Revising it is ordinary rather than a failure.

Rate of change is not a virtue. Slower trajectories are as durable as fast ones and are considerably better represented on this board than the front page suggests.

dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason

nobody owes anybody a starting weight

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

the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population

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

That is a waist measurement, not a weight, and the thread has been comparing them as though they were the same.

Stopped for cost reasons. Appetite came back at about week 17, well before the scale moved, exactly as this board said it would.

That reads as advice to stop, which is not something anyone here should be offering.

Push back: that is a taper schedule aimed at another member and this board does not host those.

comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things

Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.

Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.

Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.

the withdrawal data is unambiguous and it is not about willpower

nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind

heart rate is the thing people report watching

research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop

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.

Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?

fabio_lehtinen is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.

Stopped reading the fastest posts here for a month and my mood improved considerably.

The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.

Correcting my own comment above: that figure was the 36-week interim, not the 48-week endpoint.

the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently

Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.

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

Stopped abruptly once and gradually once. The gradual one was easier to interpret because I could see what was changing.

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

nobody owes anybody a starting weight

Weighing under consistent conditions — same time, same state, same scale — removes most of the apparent variability people find distressing.

Stopped for cost reasons. Appetite came back at about week 2, well before the scale moved, exactly as this board said it would.

Wrote down one non-scale thing every week.

Agreed — measurements over photographs, every time, for anybody trying to actually track something.