Does Titrating up help weight loss?

Campdirtybirdz

Recently Joined
🚫No Source Discussion🚫
Member Since
Dec 27, 2025
Posts
10
Likes Received
1
Location
Atlanta
RS has been on Tira 7.5mg with only 15 pounds to go to goal weight. Loss 80 pounds total. They hit a stall now. Will titrating up actually help with the weight loss or just control appetite better? RS doesn't generally have hunger issues at this dose running keto in calorie deficit . Also considering switch to Reta. Interested in see responses.
 
firstly

If you are not loosing and mention stalling , did you check body composition scale , is it water holding up ? Next how many weeks of stall ? Anylise the last weight loss which happen with recent body composition it may answer few questions

Next switching to reta is also a good idea starting with 2 mg dose or 1.5 mg , to give it a start with since you are near to your goal , it will be a good idea to, but if you have already stock of Tira you can always increase by .5 to test if it helps
 
2 week stall. No body composition scale yet. Thinking about getting a renpho scale but reviews seem mixed. RS just started adding weight lifting to the mix. Great advice 🙂
 
I feel like the trials definitely show correlation between dose and weight lost, so I'd assume going up would help. As for reta, at this point in your journey I'd add it in to your tirz protocol rather than switch over and have to spend time titrating up. Keep you tirz at 7.5 and add 2 of reta and I'd bet you'd see a good jump in weight loss.
 
RS has been on Tira 7.5mg with only 15 pounds to go to goal weight. Loss 80 pounds total. They hit a stall now. Will titrating up actually help with the weight loss or just control appetite better? RS doesn't generally have hunger issues at this dose running keto in calorie deficit . Also considering switch to Reta. Interested in see responses.
This is why I get a kick out of the "calories" people. If you're not losing fat then (by definition) you're not running a calorie deficit. I mean how in the world would you ever actually know your calorie status on any particular day if you're not hooked up to fancy equipment in a metabolic ward? Just because a scale spits out some calorie number or a table on the internet says some number doesn't mean that's your number for a particular day/week. This isn't directed at you personally, just that the calories concept is so prevalent that so many people buy into it and then get confused by it "not working."

I think what you meant to say is that you haven't increased the amount of food that you're eating VS the amount that you'd previously been losing weight eating and you've hit a stall. So yes, as ambot88 pointed out, the trials all show that higher dosages tend to lead to greater average weight loss. Of course, those are AVERAGES and it's impossible to know for you as an individual how much more weight loss a particular dosage increase will lead to, but data all points to more GLP juice in your veins leading to greater weight loss.

A good analogy for this might be trying to control how fast your car is going on the freeway by how far you push down the gas pedal. If you're going a stable 60 MPH and want to get to 70 MPH you have to push the gas pedal down more. How much? It's hard to know exactly, but it could be a half inch. Of course, that's not to say that every half inch is another 10 MPH. It's to say that once you hit 70 MPH you shouldn't be confused that your car doesn't keep speeding up (without pushing down the pedal further).
 
2 week stall. No body composition scale yet. Thinking about getting a renpho scale but reviews seem mixed. RS just started adding weight lifting to the mix. Great advice 🙂
Two weeks is not considered a stall. If the plateau lasts 4-6 weeks, it may be time to adjust your calorie intake or exercise routine. Body adaptation is a thing. Good luck!
 
Question about protein. RS always struggle to get more than 100 gms per day. It always feels like RS is eating too much. Will more protein help with weight lossor just muscle retention?
 
Question about protein. RS always struggle to get more than 100 gms per day. It always feels like RS is eating too much. Will more protein help with weight lossor just muscle retention?
That's a good question and sadly there isn't a simple answer. If you're limiting your food intake overall (and you've said that you are) then shifting more of that towards protein is often beneficial. In the extreme case (consuming nothing but protein) you do trend towards "rabbit starvation" (look that up if unfamiliar), which in a certain light might not be the worst outcome for someone on GLPs. 😉

With traditional diet-initiated weight loss, people are often successful, even on very low protein diets (to the extent that protein isn't getting replaced with high-glycemic/processed carbs) and weight loss will tend to bias more towards fat.

With hormone-initiated weight loss (what you're doing), it's more complicated and we have much less data to go off of. Some earlier GLPs were a disaster for maintaining lean mass during weight loss, but anecdotally it seems like the dual and triple agonist meds aren't as bad in that regard. Personally, I'd lean towards prioritizing protein on hormone-initiated weight loss and weight management, even if that might shift me to an undesired place in terms of "calories."
 
So to recap our options.
1. Continue on same dose and hope two weeks of stall is an anomaly.
2. Go up to the next dosing amount 10mg.
3. Dose 7.5mg every 5 days.
4. Add 2mg Reta to 7.5mg Tirz.
5. Go straight to Reta.
??Decisions, Decisions??🙂
 
So to recap our options.
1. Continue on same dose and hope two weeks of stall is an anomaly.
2. Go up to the next dosing amount 10mg.
3. Dose 7.5mg every 5 days.
4. Add 2mg Reta to 7.5mg Tirz.
5. Go straight to Reta.
??Decisions, Decisions??🙂
I mean if you want a full list of options... LOL
6: Add survo/maz for "ghetto reta."
7: Adjust diet in some manner.
8: Gastric bypass surgery.
9: Add something else to juice GH.
10: Discontinue treatment and accept weight regain.
11: Join a local boxing gym.

But I suspect most would lean towards 2/3 or 4.
 
I mean if you want a full list of options... LOL
6: Add survo/maz for "ghetto reta."
7: Adjust diet in some manner.
8: Gastric bypass surgery.
9: Add something else to juice GH.
10: Discontinue treatment and accept weight regain.
11: Join a local boxing gym.

But I suspect most would lean towards 2/3 or 4.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Is maintaining your TZ runway important to you with 15lbs to go? It's a question to answer in your decision making process about next step.

Good luck! You're doing great. 80lb weight loss is amazing!!
 
The most obvious question is do you have side effects that are an issue at your current dose? I would need to know your start weight, age and height and how much weight you have lost over how long to give a better answer, but if there are no side effects then there is no reason not to increase doses. If you have lost 80 lbs, and again it would be easier with more data, then there is probably a strong argument to increase the dose anyway and keep increasing it to 15mg. That degree of excess weight is almost certainly enough to carry severe long term health risks, and higher doses are more effective than lower doses at preventing the long term health problems that come from obesity, and most likely improve your chances of maintaining the weight loss if continued long term. Which will prevent diabetes , high blood pressure, high cholesterol, strokes heart attacks etc etc.
The other question I would ask , is how comfortable are you with your current calorie intake? Are you hungry a lot of the time and having to constantly choose to eat less than you body is telling you to eat? The reason that GLP's work and work long term is they can fix this problem. So if you are still having to eat less than you feel like eating , then another reason to up the dose.
Of course only 2 weeks of no change in weight does not really mean anything, fluid balance fluctuations can be several kilos one way or the other and cause what looks like a stall on the scales very easily. If how much you eat has not changed, and you were previously loosing weight at a reasonable pace it is probably fluid.
If weight loss has been very slowly losing pace over a long time it is much more likely to be a genuine stall, but you are in a great position and luckier than average in that you have already lost a stack of weight and still have room to increase doses, so getting to your target is pretty likely, and you will have had a better than average response. The problem is much more often that weight loss will stop at maximum doses before you get near your target especially when people have more severe obesity.
I do not think switching to reta or not is a big deal, but you are responding very well to tirz, and I assume you do not have lots of side effects, so swapping is going to mess up your diet for a while as you slowly swap over and increase reta doses, and you are more likely to get side effects from reta than tirz, and there is the small chance you are allergic to it, so given it looks like tirz will get you to your target at a bit higher doses, I cannot see any obvious advantage in swapping.
 
I Really appreciate your detailed response. The effects have been Constipation, dry skin, more recently being cold all the time. Fiber gummies and mag c have been the answer for the constipation. Moisturize everything for the dry skin and I assume being 80 pounds lighter has something to do with being cold all the time. Pretty consistent meals daily which is coffee, core power shake lunch, grilled chicken avocado snack and some protein and veg for dinner. No hunger issues. What's left is that nasty visceral stretched stomach fat which is pushing another more exercise.
 
All of those side effects could as easily be caused by weight loss or diet changes as by the drug. So that does not help a lot. I did just notice you had already said hunger is not much of an issue. Feeling cold is definitely something that happens partly from lost insulation and partly from reduced metabolic rate from the weight loss.
Even if you are not feeling especially hungry higher doses will most likely result in you eating less calories overall and increase weight loss.
Knowing how old/healthy or young/unhealthy you are would make a big difference to how important full 15mg doses are for long term health issues, the older and less healthy the more important it is in my opinion anyway. No one else on here mentions this so I think it is worthwhile repeating it.
100 grams a day of protein should be more than enough, depending on weight a bit, to reduce muscle loss , I would be surprised if increasing it from there made a big difference. I always found protein to be the most filling food per calorie by a mile compared to anything else so it has that advantage over other food types.
I would still go with increased doses, does not sound like side effects are likely to be an issue going to 10mg. I definitely do not subscribe to the keep doses as low and increase as slowly as possible camp, especially in the context of more severe obesity. If you are trying to lose more than 20 or 25% body weight I cannot see any reason to not go to full doses eventually unless side effects are a problem.
 
im still new here but im finding out i apparently am in a different category of people when it comes to mindset and strategies so ill ad my 2 cents and see if i get in trouble.

you said in the first opening post that you do not have issues with hunger at current levels and diet. that is good, generally in a non drug aided diet plan you are going to be some level of hungry and i know everyone here apparently wants to completely avoid that but if you have no issue with it atm why not just cut back a little more to where you do feel a little hunger before titrating up? or conversely you could ad like literally a 10 minute walk a day to get you into a slight deficient, again without upping the dose to keep your potential... runway? ( someone let me know if im using that right) as someone els said intact with the meds.

weight loss is not always linier and a 2 week "stall" is not crazy. your fat cells try to keep the same size for as long as possible by taking in water as they are losing actual fat storage to see if they will get replenished soon and then will dump all the excess water in what alot of fitness people refer to as the "woosh" when all the weight loss basically catches up from them dropping the retained water. if you just keep bumping up the meds while not giving your body the time to figure out it has actually lost the fat you will end up at max dose and have nowhere to go but to add even more compounds.
congrats ont he 80lbs thats huge btw. youve come this far and done an amazing job so far, just give it another couple of weeks and see if your body catches up is my opinion.
 
Indeed, it's just more difficult for a 265lb person to loose 15lbs, than a 330lb person, because it's a percentage thing. I lost 63lbs from 330. Still want to loose another 15.
Starting on my 2nd month of 15mg. Somewhere around 10 to 12.5mg/week, I stalled for over 100 days. I stayed on "the study" schedule, but what made the scale start to move again was simply eating less. IMHO the whole protein thing is simply because it's not readily stored. It's a buzz-word. Everyone should be mindful of it, sure. But I'll be dambed if I drink those lead fortified protein drink. I'll eat horsemeat thrice a day before I drink that shit.
 
Super lean meat is the most filling food in existence per calorie in my experience. And stops you from getting hungry for longer as well. I am on about 3g/kg/day without any protein powders or shakes, just low fat dairy and meat. You get a cheat of extra calories is one advantage, it takes about 20% of the calories in protein to digest and metabolise it so you get an extra 20 cal per 100 calories for free, and free calories are nice when trying to lose weight. So if I am eating 800 kcal of protein a day then it only counts for 640 cal in terms of effects on weight. Which is an extra small free snack per day, or slightly more or faster weight loss.
The closer you get to normal weight the harder your body will try to hang onto the fat, reducing energy expenditure to match calorie intake if it can. When I started at 145kg I lost 6 kg a month exactly until I got to about 90kg or so and then slowly over the next 6 months weight loss slowed to a complete stop with absolutely no change in calorie intake the entire time ( about 1600kcal/day ). The energy expenditure drop from weight loss and metabolic adaptation can be a very large effect. From 6kg/mo to zero is a drop of 1500kcal/day over less than a year. and the 1600 a day was what I had to eat to not put weight on , a fair bit less than predicted for age and activity level.
 
issues with hunger at current levels and diet. that is good, generally in a non drug aided diet plan you are going to be some level of hungry and i know everyone here apparently wants to completely avoid that but if you have no issue with it atm why not just cut back a little more to where you do feel a little hunger before titrating up?
I suspect a big part of the lack of hunger for OP is the choice of dietary intervention, as the style of diet they're on (GLPs aside) can be highly effective at keeping hunger at bay. Of course cravings are an entirely different story...

At the same time, I do find myself questioning some of the sentiment here stressing keeping dosage down to the bare minimum until a stall is fully proven out. I think there's a natural tendency to ramp up dose very quickly ("if some is good more must be better" sentiment) and in trying to curb that desire, perhaps we err a little to aggressively towards keeping dose to a minimum.

I generally agree with what you said, though.
 
I am on about 3g/kg/day without any protein powders or shakes, just low fat dairy and meat.
I understand that on a theoretical bases "protein is protein" (although I guess amino acid composition could be dug into a bit deeper). With that said, I know that I've previously found that protein from dairy (whether via protein shakes, cottage cheese, greek yogurt, or otherwise) seems to affect me differently than ground beef or steak.

I'm not sure if it's an absorption rate thing or what exactly is going on, but although I feel better when I eat ground beef or steak, it does seem to drive my weight up for whatever reason. Granted, I'm not doing any body comp scans so it could be a lean mass VS fat thing, but I gained significant weight going from a keto diet to a carnivore diet (as an example).
 
At the same time, I do find myself questioning some of the sentiment here stressing keeping dosage down to the bare minimum until a stall is fully proven out. I think there's a natural tendency to ramp up dose very quickly ("if some is good more must be better" sentiment) and in trying to curb that desire, perhaps we err a little to aggressively towards keeping dose to a minimum.
Before glp's broke into the vernacular, my cousin was on one. I remember he said to me that he wished he had titrated up more slowly instead of "blindly" (his language) increasing every 4 weeks. He ran out of runway and still had weight he wanted to lose. He felt very frustrated. I don't know what he ultimately decided to do. But his frustration stuck with me.
This is why I lean conservatively on this topic.

There are now many ways to work around a lack of runway. 4 yrs ago, I don't know what approved tools he had at his disposal to compensate for reaching approved ceiling dosage.
 
Before glp's broke into the vernacular, my cousin was on one. I remember he said to me that he wished he had titrated up more slowly instead of "blindly" (his language) increasing every 4 weeks. He ran out of runway and still had weight he wanted to lose. He felt very frustrated. I don't know what he ultimately decided to do. But his frustration stuck with me.
This is why I lean conservatively on this topic.

There are now many ways to work around a lack of runway. 4 yrs ago, I don't know what approved tools he had at his disposal to compensate for reaching approved ceiling dosage.
I understand that's the reasoning people apply. I just don't find that claim to be remotely plausible. It would imply that your body has some way of remembering the dosage escalation that you followed.

Going back to my speed VS gas pedal analogy earlier, it would be like your car somehow remembering how quickly you ramped up speed and a certain position on the gas pedal (on a specific stretch of highway) now keeping you at 85 MPH instead of 80 MPH because you accelerated differently. I'll acknowledge that on different parts of highway (less wind or different grade) that the same position on the gas pedal will lead to different speeds, but that's very different.

From my past experience with diets, my paradigm of body weight is that you don't "gain" or "lose" weight on different diets, so much as each different diet trends towards a certain weight result. And as you change from one diet to another, you gain or lose weight based on whether the new diet trends to a different weight result than the previous diet you were on. For example, coming from the standard American diet, most people would lose weight by switching to a carnivore diet. Meanwhile, a gaunt raw-vegan with a low BMI switching to a carnivore diet would be expected to gain weight. Which diets trend towards which final weight results will vary somewhat from person to person (since we all have unique hormonal and biochemical factors), of course.

The same logic would apply to a gym program. Let's say a certain exercise routine brings you from 250 pounds to 240 pounds. Presumably when you stop that routine, you'd trend back towards 250 pounds again. Meanwhile maybe a different routine brings you all the way down to 230 pounds. It seems unlikely that if you started with the lighter routine (that only got you down to 240) and then switched to the more intense routine that you'd somehow end up at a weight other than 230, just because you started with the other routine first.

Going back to GLPs, it would be very odd for them to be the exception to this where varying the dose escalation would affect final result hormonally. What I do believe is possible (and where I agree with the slower escalation people) is that IF you lost a bunch of weight by quickly jumping to the highest dosing, that might leave you ill-equipped to deal with hunger (due to months of strong suppression) that later surfaces. Meanwhile, the slower escalation people might have formed better habits for dealing with hunger along the way. I'm not sure how powerful that effect would be, of course, but it seems reasonable for something like that to influence the final result in some manner.
 
Before glp's broke into the vernacular, my cousin was on one. I remember he said to me that he wished he had titrated up more slowly instead of "blindly" (his language) increasing every 4 weeks. He ran out of runway and still had weight he wanted to lose. He felt very frustrated. I don't know what he ultimately decided to do. But his frustration stuck with me.
This is why I lean conservatively on this topic.

There are now many ways to work around a lack of runway. 4 yrs ago, I don't know what approved tools he had at his disposal to compensate for reaching approved ceiling dosage.
I think this way of seeing how GLP's work is based on internet folklore, not the underlying research. There is no evidence that how quickly you increase doses makes any difference to the final amount of weight loss, just the final dose. Increasing slowly is entirely about reducing unpleasant side effects, suddenly starting at max doses would be enough to put a decent percentage of people in hospital with intractable vomiting, so avoiding that and making the experience less unpleasant makes a lot of sense. Equally folklore based is the concept of starting on one less effective GLP so you can switch to a more effective one later once you stop losing weight. It just does not make any sense at all, pick the most effective drug or the one with the least side effects. I cannot see any good reason to use semaglutide currently, given it has more side effects and is less effective.
I think the reason people feel that they "ran out of runway" is just expecting GLP's to work miracles. There is a limit to how much weight people usually lose on them, and a lot of people with more severe obesity have more to lose than these drugs can achieve. And exactly 50% of people are going to lose less than the average amount of weight lost in the trials, and some unlucky people are going to lose a lot less, and a few lucky ones a lot more.
The amounts of weight lost I see on this forum are often higher than the results seen in the studies, and I think it is mainly selection bias, the people who had amazing life changing results are the ones most likely to post and keep talking about it.
People who are at a genuine plateau, that is on maximum standard dose and stuck there for a month or more are just at the limit of what that drug can do for them, and I think it is super important to accept that and stay on it as any significant weight loss will improve health, even if you are not at completely non overweight BMI's. Before GLP's doctors were very happy to claim 5 or sometimes 10% weight loss maintained as a major success, with significant reductions in long term health risks.
There are no proven methods yet to fix this problem, that have actual studies showing that it is safe, but anecdotal reports demonstrate that combining GLP's or increased doses can work, hopefully future research shows that the health benefits outweigh the risks of using unstudied therapies.
 
At the same time, I do find myself questioning some of the sentiment here stressing keeping dosage down to the bare minimum until a stall is fully proven out. I think there's a natural tendency to ramp up dose very quickly ("if some is good more must be better" sentiment) and in trying to curb that desire, perhaps we err a little to aggressively towards keeping dose to a minimum.

I generally agree with what you said, though.
yeah, thats why i said i apparently fall into a different category than alot of people here, because to me it feels like the idea of any sort of hunger is a failure on the medication so the solution is to add more and more is very common here. where as i see it and use it more as a tool to help you deal with the level of hunger. you are kind of peckish rather than full on HANGRY levels of ravenous while dropping weight. that's a win, you aren't nearly as clouded by the dark shadow of hunger, rather just reminded that there are clouds in the sky while you go about your day.

i know for me i am currently on 1.5mg tirz every 8 days and that is enough to make me think about the food as i am teetering on the edge of a binge to go "im not ACTUALLY hungry, but i WANT to eat" so i can make my meal prep instead of grabbing whatever is in front of me. and the half life of that waning near my shot day keeps me in a steady place of "ok now i AM hungry, the otherday i guess i was just bored" and can use that reference to also pull me back from the edge of a binge.

i have my own struggles and mind set about things, and i know others are completely different and just as valid as my own. but the idea that any level of hunger is the enemy feels like an easy way to fall into dependance and over consumption
 
This conversation took place when Ozempic was being rx'd off label a few years before it was approved for weight loss and rebranded. With little information and almost no context, it is a bold statement to dismiss someone's lived experience as internet folklore.

You've twisted my words. Perhaps I was unclear. They are not concepts I'm interested to hash out tonight. It's been a very long week and I'm tired.

Edited for typo
 
Last edited:
The amounts of weight lost I see on this forum are often higher than the results seen in the studies, and I think it is mainly selection bias, the people who had amazing life changing results are the ones most likely to post and keep talking about it.
I'd wondered about that too. Sure seems like (almost) everyone here is above average. You could be correct and it's just selection bias, but I wouldn't be surprised if being able to more precisely control one's own dosing rate and schedule actually improves results VS a constant dose.

I realize I just got done arguing that dosing escalation rate doesn't really matter, so I probably sound like I'm contradicting myself here. I'm more thinking I wouldn't be surprised if the greater degree to which people here obsess over GLPs and controlling them (VS it just being a thing in the fridge they pop out once a week and otherwise don't really think about) has some indirect effect and perhaps correlates with making other beneficial challenges.

By virtue of having to vet vendors, wrap your mind around crypto, and go through all this extra hassle you have a much stronger psychological investment in the process and result VS just being handed this thing your doctor told you to do every week. Kind of like how you more strongly value that bike you spent the summer working a newspaper route to save up for VS a bike your parents just gave you.

And by trying to maintain minimal effective dosing in the manner bbbilly described, he does seem to be setting himself up for a possible small additional edge at plateau in that it would seem that if he can maintain that habit at plateau it would juice the results, just as were he to engage in that practice before he started he would likely experience some small sustained weight loss from performing it diligently.
 
Internet folklore is an actual term used by researchers to describe how GLP's or Anabolic steroids are talked about online. It was in no way intended as a personal criticism.
I honestly think that those ways of looking at the drugs are unhelpful, and can lead to worse long term outcomes , and can lead to people being disappointed with the results and giving up.
One of the great things about this forum is people's descriptions of their lived experiences on these medications, that can provide some types of subjective experiences that cannot be worked out from the studies, one thing that is very obvious is how different peoples' experiences of effects and side effects are. But anecdotal reports can be misleading as well, which is why the studies are done double blinded and with all the results added together to separate out placebo effects and real effects.
 
I'd wondered about that too. Sure seems like (almost) everyone here is above average. You could be correct and it's just selection bias, but I wouldn't be surprised if being able to more precisely control one's own dosing rate and schedule actually improves results VS a constant dose.

I realize I just got done arguing that dosing escalation rate doesn't really matter, so I probably sound like I'm contradicting myself here. I'm more thinking I wouldn't be surprised if the greater degree to which people here obsess over GLPs and controlling them (VS it just being a thing in the fridge they pop out once a week and otherwise don't really think about) has some indirect effect and perhaps correlates with making other beneficial challenges.

By virtue of having to vet vendors, wrap your mind around crypto, and go through all this extra hassle you have a much stronger psychological investment in the process and result VS just being handed this thing your doctor told you to do every week. Kind of like how you more strongly value that bike you spent the summer working a newspaper route to save up for VS a bike your parents just gave you.

And by trying to maintain minimal effective dosing in the manner bbbilly described, he does seem to be setting himself up for a possible small additional edge at plateau in that it would seem that if he can maintain that habit at plateau it would juice the results, just as were he to engage in that practice before he started he would likely experience some small sustained weight loss from performing it diligently.
Placebo effects are definitely enhanced by complexity , cost and investment of time and effort. Placebo surgery or sham surgery usually wins by miles for maximum placebo effect. The genuine versions definitely win on the cost front, and it does seem to me that people forget how amazing these drugs are, and how long it has taken to get to a point where there are anti obesity drugs that just work, because they are so cheap from China.
The grey versions definitely win out on the complexity and requirement for investment of time and effort, almost no one using them will have ever had to reconstitute vials with special liquids and very carefully calculate amounts and doses before, as well as the whole semi illicit process of buying them. Not sure which one wins overall.
 

Trending Topics

Forum Statistics

Threads
17,627
Posts
182,894
Members
59,296
Newest
urotex
Back
Top Bottom