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…
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