unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about triple agonist is guesswork
unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about triple agonist is guesswork, which sounds obvious until you try to state the evidence for it.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not 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.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Removed the escalation schedule. There is no published protocol for members to follow and inventing one here is exactly what this board does not do.
Removed the escalation schedule.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
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.
Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older molecules, simply because fewer members have paid for it.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme.
reflux_report is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?
heart rate is the thing people report watching
- 1Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older…13 comments in this branch · started by u/divya_bakken