[Discussion] "tirz is stronger than sema" needs a comparator dose or it means nothing
"tirz is stronger than sema" needs a comparator dose or it means nothing. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments.
Came off sema and onto tirz with a two-week gap. The first month was flat and I assumed I had made a mistake. Month two it moved.
Held 7.5 for five months. Everyone kept asking when I was going to 10. The answer was never, because 7.5 was working.
The distribution matters more than the mean. In the trial population the interquartile spread was wide enough that two honest people can have completely different runs on the same arm.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Removed the conversion table. There is no published equivalence between the two molecules and posting one as fact is exactly the kind of thing that gets copied for years.
the appetite effect is blunter than sema, in a good way, most weeks
Have you held a step for longer than the four-week minimum at any point?
the four-week step schedule is the label, not folklore
the four-week step schedule is the label, not folklore
kaia_cabrera is right that the two molecules are not interchangeable. There is no published conversion and the ones circulating are invented.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. Anything in this thread about how a research vial "should" titrate is a discussion about chemistry, not a plan.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
This. The step interval is a floor, and reading it as a timetable is the most expensive mistake in the thread.
dual agonist, so the GIP arm is doing something the sema threads will not tell you about
switching from sema is not a dose conversion, there is no clean equivalence
What step are you on and how long have you been there?
if 7.5 is working, 10 is not automatically better
Push back: "gentler than sema" is a population statement. Plenty of people on this board have the opposite experience and they are not doing it wrong.
hold the dose that works, the ladder is not a leaderboard
Weekly dosing again, half-life in the same neighbourhood as sema, so a step change takes about a month to reach steady state. Judging a new step at day five is judging noise.
2.5 is the starter dose and it is not meant to be the dose that works
The step schedule question, answered properly, because it comes up weekly.
The label sets a minimum interval of four weeks between increases. That is a floor on how fast you may go, and it exists because tolerability, not efficacy, is what limits most people. There is nothing in the pharmacology that says you must increase at four weeks, or at eight, or ever.
What decides it in practice is whether the effect you want is still there. If appetite is quiet and the trend is going the right way, the dose is doing its job. If both have genuinely gone flat for six weeks or more, that is a conversation worth having with someone who knows your history.
I would separate the two claims. That the GIP arm exists is uncontroversial; that it explains your nausea pattern is a guess.
Small fix: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme, SURPASS is the type-2 programme. They are different endpoints and the numbers do not transfer.
the trials titrated on a calendar, real people titrate on symptoms
- 1Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. Anything in this…7 comments in this branch · started by u/vito_chowdhury
- 2Removed the conversion table. There is no published equivalence between the…6 comments in this branch · started by u/dexa_twice_yearly