Here is an article comparing the different weight loss medicines

There aren't papers on their opinions. Go to the roundtable and you can read them for yourself.
So what you're saying is you can't link anything?

And anecdotal opinions aren't worth much. In god we trust, all other must provide data.
 
So what you're saying is you can't link anything?

And anecdotal opinions aren't worth much. In god we trust, all other must provide data.
Nope can't link it because it's long in depth conversations. I could link all the actual studies done on reta but you already know that they all use weekly dosing and I doubt it matters to you because you think you know why even though it's complete speculation.

How about you put up something to prove your theory about split dosing since it goes against the actual studies?
 
Nope can't link it because it's long in depth conversations. I could link all the actual studies done on reta but you already know that they all use weekly dosing and I doubt it matters to you because you think you know why even though it's complete speculation.

How about you put up something to prove your theory about split dosing since it goes against the actual studies?
I'm not the one making strong claims about the efficacy of weekly dosing vs. more frequent.

But we can look at what we know in other medications and extrapolate from there.

We tend to find more frequent dosing performs as well as longer dosing, and sometimes better:


Also something in common with peptides and GH: (To be fair, this is looking at daily injection of HGH vs. a modified form mean to have a longer half-life)


We also know that a big part of why longer dosing is often preferred is adherence, e.g.

Not to say that more frequent dosing is always better on every front - with TRT people often do it for a variety of reasons, but increased frequency has shown some risk when it comes to blood thickening:

From an empiricist perspective, we do not have data to speak strongly one way or the other. So I won't. From a rationalist perspective, we have plenty of data that overall serum levels tends to be what is important for medication efficacy, and no specific reason to believe retatrutide will behave any differently.

Are you wrong? I don't know - there is very little I would say I am confident that I know on any drug undergoing clinical trials. But I will say until provided reason to believe otherwise, my default assumption is to go with what is most likely from a statistical perspective - and that's that dosing frequency tends to have minor impact when total amount is proportional.
 
Last edited:
But twice a week is still way less than the people that are doing it everyday. Drug responses are not linear to the serum level. If the serum levels don't spike enough the ketogenic effects are lot likely to happen.
The studies looked at once per week dosing. To my knowledge, and there are certainly many studies I didn't read on reta, reta has only been studied with once per week dosing. Deciding to only take it once per week since that's how it's been studied sounds like a reasonable decision, although I'll confess I take tirzepatide twice per week even though it too has only tested in trials once per week. As to your suggestion that you won't go into ketosis unless you take reta only once per week, I'm unaware of scientific basis for such a statement. If the drug makers thought taking reta once per week resulted in ketosis, they likely would have tried more frequent dosing to avoid causing diabetics to suffer from ketoacidosis.
 
I'm not the one making strong claims about the efficacy of weekly dosing vs. more frequent.
You are making a claim that twice a week is as effective. Extrapolating is no less speculation. Statins are a very different class of drugs that work in a different way.

You're pretending that you're being more scientific than just following the studies and the subject experts that have weighed in on them (that you haven't bothered to go read).
 
The studies looked at once per week dosing. To my knowledge, and there are certainly many studies I didn't read on reta, reta has only been studied with once per week dosing. Deciding to only take it once per week since that's how it's been studied sounds like a reasonable decision, although I'll confess I take tirzepatide twice per week even though it too has only tested in trials once per week. As to your suggestion that you won't go into ketosis unless you take reta only once per week, I'm unaware of scientific basis for such a statement. If the drug makers thought taking reta once per week resulted in ketosis, they likely would have tried more frequent dosing to avoid causing diabetics to suffer from ketoacidosis.
It's a minor ketosis anyways. It's just an example of one thing that could explain why proper spacing between doses works better.

Heres the chart for tirz because it's what I've got on hand to show the non-linear response of these drug levels to receptor activation.

If you want more details you're gonna have to make up with Arthur.
 
You are making a claim that twice a week is as effective. Extrapolating is no less speculation. Statins are a very different class of drugs that work in a different way.

You're pretending that you're being more scientific than just following the studies and the subject experts that have weighed in on them (that you haven't bothered to go read).
I am making a claim that we have no specific reason to believe that twice a week is less effective than once a week. For someone who is passing judgment on people's adherence to scientific principles, you should probably remember that the null hypothesis is a foundational part to science.

At current your argument is "Go read some anecdotal opinions buried somewhere in this thing that I won't link you to."

Even your latest link shows only a minor deviation from a linear response for a handful of hours before it returns to being linear. And if you plotted a second dosage, you'd see another spike bringing it back above the weekly dosing line. But you believe that a few hours out of the whole week is making a significant difference in the efficacy? If we have data where a disproportionate amount of weight is lost during that time period or we can see lasting downstream effects caused by the larger spike and those make sense from a mechanistic purpose, then sure, you might be on to something.

But instead your argument is that it might maybe be important for causing "minor ketosis," despite having provided no evidence that the effects on ketosis differ from one dosing schedule to another.
 
But instead your argument is that it might maybe be important for causing "minor ketosis," despite having provided no evidence that the effects on ketosis differ from one dosing schedule to another.
I'm not making an argument. And I'm definitely not wasting any more time on you.

Keep doing what ever you want. I was never trying to stop you.
 
I'm not making an argument. And I'm definitely not wasting any more time on you.

Keep doing what ever you want. I was never trying to stop you.
You made a strong statement about how the way a good portion of the users of retatrutide are doing it wrong without providing any evidence. I'm not sure how you think that's not making an argument.

If this was a private conversation, I'd shrug, wonder why someone believed that, and ignore it because I don't really care. In a public setting where people are looking at these posts for advice and understanding, I am going to ask people to provide evidence for strong claims.

You can bother to respond, or not. I also don't really care.
 
Back
Top