JennaRN said:SURMOUNT-1 landed around 20.9% mean weight loss at 15mg over 72 weeks, against roughly 15% for semaglutide 2.4mg in STEP 1.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me. It is better on mean weight loss, and the cardiovascular outcome evidence is far thinner than semaglutide's. If the reason for treating is cardiovascular risk rather than weight, the evidence base points the other way.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
TrialTracker_MD said:The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How much of the tirzepatide advantage is the GIP component and how much is simply that the dose ladder goes higher in receptor-occupancy terms?
Closing the loop on my own question.
I stayed at 10mg. Another six months, another 7kg, no new side effects, and my reading of the dose-response says the last two steps were never going to be worth what they cost me.