is it normal to get muscle cramps at week 86
Update, and the title has the headline: is it normal to get muscle cramps at week 86.
Compared milligram figures across two completely different molecule classes in a comment. Deserved the correction.
Went looking for independent testing on this and found essentially nothing, which was clarifying.
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
Analytically this is a small-molecule identity and purity problem, not a peptide one. The methods, the impurity classes and the reference standards are all different.
What did the tolerability table look like at that dose?
Disagree. You are comparing doses across a small molecule and a peptide, which is not a comparison of anything.
I would not assume the tolerability profile transfers exactly. Similar class effects, different exposure profile.
Milligram comparisons across molecule classes are meaningless. Potency is a property of the molecule at its receptor, not of the number on the label.
Milligram comparisons across molecule classes are meaningless.
Adding the standing caveat — unapproved, and research material is not for human use.
The no-timing-restriction thing is the part I would care about most in practice, and it barely gets mentioned here.
the manufacturing story is genuinely different from the injectables
the manufacturing story is genuinely different from the injectables
lina_novak is right that milligram comparisons across classes tell you nothing.
Not convinced. Oral semaglutide is a peptide formulated with an absorption enhancer; the comparison you are making does not hold.
nothing containing this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use
Spent an evening reading about small-molecule agonism at a peptide receptor. Genuinely interesting engineering.
That is a phase 2 result being quoted as though the programme had reported.
Daily dosing, so what does the exposure profile look like across the day?
Careful — purity methods for peptides do not read across to a small molecule and the numbers are not equivalent.
daily dosing, not weekly, so the exposure profile is different
Daily rather than weekly sounds trivial until you think about what a missed dose means in each case.
Push back: daily dosing is not automatically better adherence. It is a different failure mode, not a solved problem.
a non-peptide agonist does not degrade the way a peptide does
Is that from the publication or the press release?
nothing containing this is approved anywhere yet
phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair
phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair
Agreed, and it is why the oral peptide comparison keeps misleading people.
oral and non-peptide is the whole engineering story
Cosigning on daily dosing. It changes the exposure profile and it changes adherence, in both directions.
Daily dosing gives a very different exposure profile from a weekly injectable: peaks and troughs within each day rather than a smoothed weekly curve.
do not assume reconstitution intuitions apply, there is nothing to reconstitute
Which programme and which readout are you quoting?
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
- 1Daily rather than weekly sounds trivial until you think about what a missed…8 comments in this branch · started by u/chidi_yilmaz