genuine question about retatrutide that I am slightly embarrassed to ask
genuine question about retatrutide that I am slightly embarrassed to ask. Searched first, found three threads that contradict each other, hence the post.
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
Watched heart rate on a wearable across twelve weeks because the threads said to. It moved a little and I have no idea whether that means anything.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
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.
The injection-site soreness profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
The injection-site soreness profile felt different rather than worse.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
Careful with the rankings. A phase 2 result and a phase 3 result are not on the same evidential footing and cannot be listed in one table.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
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.
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
Trial names corrected in the title. The phase 3 programme and the phase 2 readout are not the same thing.
heart rate is the thing people report watching
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
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.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
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.
The phase 2 readout ran to 48 weeks in a few hundred participants with a slow escalation. Both the size and the duration matter when people quote the headline number.
Sent a vial to Medutest out of curiosity. Result was 99.6% against a claimed 99.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
small trial, big effect, wide error bars
- 1Trial names corrected in the title. The phase 3 programme and the phase 2…7 comments in this branch · started by u/reta_and_regret
- 2Increases in heart rate have been reported across this receptor class. The…6 comments in this branch · started by u/niels_lindqvist