[Question] is 99.3% actually fine or am I being sold a rounding error
The claim in the title is exactly the claim I am making: is 99.3% actually fine or am I being sold a rounding error. Nothing implied beyond it.
Pulling the figures out of the title: 99.3%. All of it is written down as it happened rather than reconstructed.
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.
Week 40 was the first time the scale moved after a five-week stall. I changed nothing in that window.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
SURMOUNT-1 ran 72 weeks with the top arm around 21% mean body weight change. SURPASS is the diabetes programme and reports glycaemic endpoints, so quoting the two interchangeably is a category error.
SURMOUNT-1 ran 72 weeks with the top arm around 21% mean body weight change.
Saving this one. It is the clearest statement of the stall problem I have read here.
Does food noise follow the day after the shot, or is it spread across the week?
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.
Which week did the appetite change actually land for you?
Are you comparing yourself with the trial mean or with the people who post the most?
This matches mine. Milder sulphur burps than I expected, and what there was settled inside a fortnight of each step.
The thing nobody warned me about was how much of this is logistics — storing it, remembering it, the same day every week.
What step are you on and how long have you been there?
This is the fifth "should I go up" post today and they are all welcome — but no member here can answer it for you.
This is the fifth "should I go up" post today and they are all welcome — but no member here can answer it for you.
Agreed, with one qualifier: that is the mean of the top arm and the spread around it was enormous.
[removed by moderator]
Appetite effect for me is flat across seven days. On sema it was a wave. Same person, different molecule.
Not sure that follows. You went up a step and changed your training in the same fortnight.
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.
The 21% figure is a 72-week mean on the highest arm. Quoting it as what someone should expect by week 18 is not a fair reading.
The 21% figure is a 72-week mean on the highest arm.
swirl_dont_shake is right that the two molecules are not interchangeable. There is no published conversion and the ones circulating are invented.
swirl_dont_shake is right that the two molecules are not interchangeable.
Not sure about this bit. The GIP arm being real does not tell you that it is what caused your particular week.
stepping every four weeks is a ceiling on speed, not a schedule you must hit
a lot of people plateau nicely at 10mg and never need 15
the trials titrated on a calendar, real people titrate on symptoms
dual agonist, so the GIP arm is doing something the sema threads will not tell you about
- 1Which week did the appetite change actually land for you?9 comments in this branch · started by u/ingrid_correia
- 2The 21% figure is a 72-week mean on the highest arm. Quoting it as what…7 comments in this branch · started by u/swirl_dont_shake