This contradicts everything that has been seen in all the studies.theway85 said:
I'm not impressed.
- Thread starter BadLouie
- Start date
- Status
It seems much more likely that the "therapeutic range" would be different in non-responders. You get much fewer non-responders at the highest dosage levels, suggesting that as dosage level increases, non-responders are converted to responders.theway85 said:
It's just not clear what that means, since nobody has run clinical trials that test non-responders at mega-doses so at best we would have N=1 data on that. And it's unclear if doing so would be safe or not.
It might stop working bc ppl’s metabolism slows down bc they’re not eating enough and the body adapts
Look into “reverse dieting”
It worked for me
Look into “reverse dieting”
It worked for me
People often confuse "stop working" with reaching the maximum effect for a given situation.Retazempic said:
Stop Working implies gaining back all the weight you lost. Other than 1 person in this thread claiming that happened to them, this is unheard of in the community and the scientific trials.
Reaching the maximum effect happens all the time with most drugs. You will loose weight until a certain point at which the drug and your body reach an equilibrium. You might even gain a small amount of weight from there but not much and slowly. In order to loose more weight, you need to change something else. more drugs, different drugs, focus on your diet or exercise, etc...
I'm on week 3, didn't feel much after week 2 and another .125, so...went up to .25 and i can feel it again, low and slow for me. Hopefully it lasts a little longer than the last dose...(just an update) Cheers!thatkatmat said:
You know that it takes a full month for the effect of any given dose to take effect right? Changing your dose every week means you never reach equilibrium.thatkatmat said:
I have read from people who cycle reta that when they restart, it seemed stronger.zpped said:
Yes, I understand that. that's why I waited until week 3 as I was on a preclinical dose to get the feel of it and made the decision to move up to a more typical starting dose of .25. I appreciate the input.zpped said:
And there are long term clinical studies showing the effectiveness is maintained. People are unreliable when there is actual data to be had.trojanpeptide said:
zpped said:
Haha. And, of course, a lot of people never get to (or stay at) the clinical maximum dose.
Although likely true, that's not necessarily useful.trojanpeptide said:
If you gain back 15 pounds by going off it for a few months, then presumably that first 15 pounds will be easier to lose when you go back on it. Of course, that's more a case of regaining lost ground than it is breaking new ground.
Likewise, if your receptors have developed some degree of resistance due to being on the drug, presumably after being off for a month or two much of that resistance will have subsided. That too will make it stronger when you go back on, but presumably it won't be long before that same level of resistance returns (due to being on the drug again).
It certainly can't hurt to give your body a break from time to time, but it would be surprising if doing so had any sort of multiplier result in terms of achieving greater weight loss VS just staying on it.
Guys, I agree to follow the clinical data; I have a strong background in STEM, I am a trained scientist. I am not the one that claimed what I wrote, it's only something I've read. I understand this is anecdotal, but also, I agree that we may have idiosyncratic reactions to peptides. For example, some are super responders (like me), and some are not.
But either way, I did indeed need to increase amounts during my treatment, as it seemed my weight loss stalled. Whether or not we call this tolerance or ' getting used to being less fed ' (metabolic slowdown?), it is my personal experience that I required tapering, so I am not dismissing any evidence whatsoever, no matter what white papers tell me.
But either way, I did indeed need to increase amounts during my treatment, as it seemed my weight loss stalled. Whether or not we call this tolerance or ' getting used to being less fed ' (metabolic slowdown?), it is my personal experience that I required tapering, so I am not dismissing any evidence whatsoever, no matter what white papers tell me.
This isn't about us dogmatically asserting that the trial data is the one true light and way that can't be questioned and must be true. I love when people find interesting angles to question that sort of thing. It's more that the experience you just described (experiencing a weight loss stall and then breaking that stall by increasing dosage) is exactly how GLP drugs are expected to work. What would require an unique or novel explanation would be if for some reason that didn't apply to you and you kept losing more weight in perpetuity without reaching a stall.trojanpeptide said:
Here is an interesting excerpt:
"Despite the knowledge from clinical studies posted by this expert user, some form of drug ‘tolerance’ per lay understandings did seem to exist for GLPs, as those who did not gradually titrate their dose, or who returned to the same dose after a period off using, would experience notable negative side-effects:
‘I jumped back in on my old dose which was too high, I spewed up in the night and next morning.’
While a scientific understanding of how GLPs work was important, posters also needed to be aware of the impact of reduced ‘tolerance’ to these drugs from a lay perspective, and consequently even among those who conceptualised decreasing efficacy in line with the thermostat analogy, new or returning users were still cautioned to ‘start low, go slow’".
Off-label GLP-1 weight-loss medicine use among online bodybuilders: Folk pharmacology, risk and harm reduction (linked)
It's open access, interesting read.
Also in that paper are suggestions about cycling between GLPs; bodybuilder stuff, but still, this could be applicable to OP's query.
"Despite the knowledge from clinical studies posted by this expert user, some form of drug ‘tolerance’ per lay understandings did seem to exist for GLPs, as those who did not gradually titrate their dose, or who returned to the same dose after a period off using, would experience notable negative side-effects:
‘I jumped back in on my old dose which was too high, I spewed up in the night and next morning.’
While a scientific understanding of how GLPs work was important, posters also needed to be aware of the impact of reduced ‘tolerance’ to these drugs from a lay perspective, and consequently even among those who conceptualised decreasing efficacy in line with the thermostat analogy, new or returning users were still cautioned to ‘start low, go slow’".
Off-label GLP-1 weight-loss medicine use among online bodybuilders: Folk pharmacology, risk and harm reduction (linked)
It's open access, interesting read.
Also in that paper are suggestions about cycling between GLPs; bodybuilder stuff, but still, this could be applicable to OP's query.
It's definitely worth trying different things and seeing what works for you. Agreed on that!trojanpeptide said:
I think some confusion here might stem from "tolerance," which you've mentioned a few times. In biological systems it's very common for them to possess defense mechanisms where the response rate to a given stimulus is reduced as the stimulus increases and that's usually described as a lack of tolerance. The quote you shared is in regards to side effects to a medication at a given level being greater after someone stops taking that medication for a while. That's a very well established phenomena in general.
I think you might be trying to apply the same logic to weight loss by looking at GLPs as the input, weight loss as the output, and labeling a weight loss stall as a loss of tolerance. I can understand the temptation to look at it that way, but doing so is going to lead you to reaching faulty conclusions. There are a whole lot of other steps and pieces that fall into place between putting a needle in your body and the eventual weight loss that follows. It would be like trying to relate pushing harder on the gas pedal of your car to the number on your speedometer going up. Although superficially you might experience something resembling a lack of tolerance at higher speeds (you can only speed up so much), that's probably not a useful way to thinking about it since it's going to neglect if you're driving up or down hill, how many people are in your car, and all sorts of other factors that are also important.
It's the receptors in your brain (and other parts of your body) that develop a reduced tolerance to GLP1 signaling. That reduced tolerance likely reaches an equilibrium well before a weight loss stall is realized. If a 1mg weekly dose would ultimately lead to a 20 pound loss (in your particular body undergoing your particular lifestyle), it might take months for that stall to be observed, but the reduction of tolerance to GLP1 signaling likely happened within weeks of you starting the medication at that particular dosage.
Welcome to the high dose club my friend! I am also a person that has responded well at high doses but never at the lower doses. I have maxed out just about every GLP 1 and every other type of peptide you can imagine. It's frustrating when people here don't understand what I'm going through and Just think it's all about hype or just wanting to get clicks and views but it is actually a problem that I've been running into and had to up my doses so high after taking breaks and trying every type of different scenarios. My Max has been 60 MG of Tirzepatide and well over 8 MG of cagri in a week. I also have stacked sema and a handful of other combos including survo ,reta and just about everything you can imagine.BadLouie said:
Super Trips said:
Have you tried a continuous glucose monitor, such as to see how much improvement on 30 mg of tirz vs. 15 mg?
I’m having recent memory loss recently as well, which is new despite my geriatric status. It seems that when I consume more protein, memory function returns, or at least, improves.randompersonrandom said:
Time for 20mg/week reta
- Status
