stalled for 7 weeks at 10mg and I refuse to panic this time
Thinking out loud about this: stalled for 7 weeks at 10mg and I refuse to panic this time.
7 weeks and 10mg — those are the numbers, and they are the ones I am willing to defend.
Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older molecules, simply because fewer members have paid for it. Fewer results means wider uncertainty, not a verdict.
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.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure and with hepatic effects. That is a mechanistic story with strong preclinical support and limited phase 2 human data.
heart rate is the thing people report watching
Increases in heart rate have been reported across this receptor class. The magnitude and clinical significance are exactly what phase 3 is powered to establish.
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
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.
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
Same read.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it precisely in a bigger population and catches what phase 2 was too small to see. Treating them as the same tier of evidence is the recurring error here.
Same read.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
What do you think the glucagon component is adding, specifically?
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
Left up. It reads the phase 2 paper carefully and it is honest about the intervals.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
Cosigning the escalation point. Almost every difficult report on this board is from somebody who went up quickly.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
- 1triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part6 comments in this branch · started by u/farid_molnar