SURMOUNT-1 was -20.9% at 72 weeks. that is the number, not -30%
Right: SURMOUNT-1 was -20.9% at 72 weeks. that is the number, not -30%. I paid for this one myself, nobody sent me anything, and the receipts are in the comments. Hard numbers: 20.9%, 72 weeks and 30%. Anything softer than that is flagged as an impression. On comparing yourself with the trial number. SURMOUNT-1…
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.
That percentage is body weight change, not body fat. Different measurement, and the distinction gets lost every time.
Cosigning the four-week thing. It is a minimum interval, and treating it as a schedule to keep up with is how people end up miserable at 12.5.
Are you comparing yourself with the trial mean or with the people who post the most?
the appetite effect is blunter than sema, in a good way, most weeks
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.