[Caution] this is not approved anywhere and half this community forgets that
Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: this is not approved anywhere and half this community forgets that.
What the glucagon arm is doing, as best anyone can say from public data.
GLP-1 and GIP agonism cover appetite and insulin secretion in ways that are now reasonably well characterised. Glucagon receptor agonism is the third leg and it is associated with increased energy expenditure and with effects on hepatic fat.
Mechanistically that is why this compound reads as a different proposition rather than a stronger version of a dual agonist. Clinically, the size and durability of that difference in humans is precisely what is not yet established, and anyone telling you otherwise is filling a gap with confidence.
Where the evidence actually stands, since every thread here assumes a different answer.
Phase 2 reported a large mean body weight change at 48 weeks across a few hundred participants with a slow, protocol-driven escalation. The effect size was striking. The confidence intervals were wide, the population was small, and the duration was under a year.
Phase 3 is running. Until it reports, everything else — including the ranking arguments this board loves — is extrapolation from a small study. That is not a criticism of the compound; it is a description of the evidence.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
best — the order this archive was captured in
It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors. The glucagon arm is the genuinely novel component and it is the one with the least human outcome data behind it.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot host that and it should not want to.
[deleted]
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of sulphur burps to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.
- 1That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot…6 comments in this branch · started by u/lane_watcher