[Lab] split one vial across Medutest and Janoshik — 99.3% and 98.7%
Filing this under things worth writing down: split one vial across Medutest and Janoshik — 99.3% and 98.7%.
To save the first four comments: 99.3% and 98.7%.
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.
Vials and pens carry the same molecule; what differs is fill volume, device tolerance and whether you are doing your own arithmetic. Neither is inherently more accurate.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Agree. The GIP component is the interesting half and it barely gets discussed outside c/glp1science.
the reflux profile is genuinely gentler than people expect coming from sema
sulphur burps are the signature complaint and they are not dangerous
the reflux profile is genuinely gentler than people expect coming from sema
Not sure about this bit. The GIP arm being real does not tell you that it is what caused your particular week.
28kg over 88 weeks, never went past 10mg, and food noise stayed mild the whole way. Posting because the loud threads are all 15mg.
the four-week step schedule is the label, not folklore
Agreed, and the trial number is a mean of a very wide distribution — the tails are enormous and nobody posts from the middle.
Appetite effect for me is flat across seven days. On sema it was a wave. Same person, different molecule.
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.
Not sure that follows. You went up a step and changed your training in the same fortnight.
Did you come to this from sema, and if so how long was the gap?
Correction to my own post above — I said 10mg and I have been on 12.5mg since the spring. Same argument, wrong number.
What step are you on and how long have you been there?
The four-week interval in the label is a minimum. Nothing about the pharmacology requires you to step on schedule, and the trials stepped on a calendar because trials have to.
Left up, flair changed to Discussion. It is an opinion post and that is fine as long as it is labelled.
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.
It is a dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist, and the GIP arm is the part that has no equivalent in the semaglutide threads. That is why the side-effect profile reads differently rather than just milder.
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.
Right. And the sema-to-tirz "conversion" people post is invented. There is no published equivalence.
Small fix: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme, SURPASS is the type-2 programme. They are different endpoints and the numbers do not transfer.
Small fix: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme, SURPASS is the type-2 programme.
Saving this one. It is the clearest statement of the stall problem I have read here.
SURMOUNT-1 landed around 21% at 72 weeks on the top arm
The 21% figure is a 72-week mean on the highest arm. Quoting it as what someone should expect by week 47 is not a fair reading.
hold the dose that works, the ladder is not a leaderboard
Yes — 10mg being a genuine landing place for a lot of people is underrated. There is no medal for 15.
week 2 is early to draw any conclusion at all
- 1The distribution matters more than the mean. In the trial population the…9 comments in this branch · started by u/ghrp_history