help me understand glucagon, I have read the wiki twice
help me understand glucagon, I have read the wiki twice. Searched first, found three threads that contradict each other, hence the post.
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.
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.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use, and that is a statement of fact rather than a disclaimer.
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
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.
Trial names corrected in the title. The phase 3 programme and the phase 2 readout are not the same thing.
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
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.
small trial, big effect, wide error bars
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
[removed by moderator]
heart rate is the thing people report watching
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
Has anyone posted an independent test on this compound recently?
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. That is not a legal formality on this board — it is why there is so little independent data, why the escalation schedules people post are invented, and why nobody here can answer a dosing question.
What this board can usefully do is read the published trials carefully, log independent purity results, and be honest about how thin the evidence base is. Everything else belongs somewhere with a clinician in it.
Sent a vial to Janoshik out of curiosity. Result was 99.4% against a claimed 99.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
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.
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.
Where the evidence actually stands, since every thread here assumes a different answer.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
- 1small trial, big effect, wide error bars7 comments in this branch · started by u/honest_syringe_2025
- 2Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more…7 comments in this branch · started by u/nikhil_lindqvist