Question about the dosage of reta

[shxisxui]

I will make my first order of Reta with jeep, I wanted to ask what dosage u use im really curious abt it

I wanted to ask if it is recommended if i start with 2-3mg per week, please let me know and sorry if this is a dumb thread, im new to this and want to know as many things as possible.

 

[GeraltRedhammer]

Start with 1 mg per week and monitor yourself. It works a little differently for everyone. The theory is that you increase the dose every 4 weeks. 1 mg, 2 mg, 4 mg, 6 mg, 8 mg, 10 mg and 12 mg. But with smaller doses, you can do it every 2 weeks.

Studies were conducted on target doses ranging from 4 to 12 mg. However, above 6 mg, adding 1 mg becomes less and less effective, and the difference between a dose of 8 mg and 12 mg is really small. But that's statistics, and each of us is different. If the dose works, I wouldn't increase it.

Retatrutyd works best for me on days 3 and 4, and on the first day it has almost no effect, which is why I divided the dose and take 2 mg every 4-5 days. Sometimes, when I realise that I haven't eaten enough, I delay the dose so that I can eat more for 1-2 days.

I do strength training every other day and lose about 5 kilograms per month.

 

[shxisxui]

Start with 1 mg per week and monitor yourself. It works a little differently for everyone. The theory is that you increase the dose every 4 weeks. 1 mg, 2 mg, 4 mg, 6 mg, 8 mg, 10 mg and 12 mg. But with smaller doses, you can do it every 2 weeks.

Studies were conducted on target doses ranging from 4 to 12 mg. However, above 6 mg, adding 1 mg becomes less and less effective, and the difference between a dose of 8 mg and 12 mg is really small. But that's statistics, and each of us is different. If the dose works, I wouldn't increase it.

Retatrutyd works best for me on days 3 and 4, and on the first day it has almost no effect, which is why I divided the dose and take 2 mg every 4-5 days. Sometimes, when I realise that I haven't eaten enough, I delay the dose so that I can eat more for 1-2 days.

I do strength training every other day and lose about 5 kilograms per month.

Would u recommend taking 2mg every 5days?

 

[GeraltRedhammer]

Would u recommend taking 2mg every 5days?

2 mg every 4 to 5 days is best for me right now. When it stops working, I will increase the dose.

You, on the other hand, have to see for yourself how you react. Most people respond positively to as little as 1 mg. You will see if it suppresses your appetite, if you lose weight on it, and if you experience nausea, diarrhoea or constipation. Some people experience sulphurous burps, heartburn, skin burning or sleep problems. However, most of these effects are due to increasing the dose too quickly. If you experience such effects, do not increase the dose, just wait until they pass. If you have no side effects and are not losing weight, it is worth increasing the dose.

 

[MsGizmo]

I will make my first order of Reta with jeep, I wanted to ask what dosage u use im really curious abt it

I wanted to ask if it is recommended if i start with 2-3mg per week, please let me know and sorry if this is a dumb thread, im new to this and want to know as many things as possible.

I am currently taking 3mg a week. No, I would NOT recommend starting at that.

I also take sema on a 3 day offset. (Sunday = sema, Wednesday = reta) Here is what I did to get to this point.

May - 0.25mg Wegovy per week

June - 0.5mg Wegovy per week

July - 0.5mg Sema per week (switched to grey)

August - 1mg Sema per week

Sept. - 1mg Sema, 1mg Reta per week

Oct. - 1.5mg Sema, 2mg Reta per week

Nov. plan - 1.5mg Sema, 3mg Reta per week

(I might up the sema to 2mg, haven't decided just yet)

I have had virtually no side effects throughout the 6 months taking GLP1s. While starting with a higher dose than I took probably wouldn't kill you it could easily give you gastric problems that make you wish for death.

 

[deleted.user.18]

I suggest following the doses and titration of the most recent studies

Titration schedule summary (based on trial protocols)

Weeks 1-4: start at the low initial dose (e.g., 2 mg for the escalation arms)

After ~4 weeks: increase dose (e.g., from 2 mg → 4 mg)

Another ~4-week period: increase again (e.g., 4 mg → 8 mg)

For the 12 mg arm, further escalation up to 12 mg was done over ~12-weeks.

After reaching the maintenance dose, participants stayed on it for the remainder of the 48-week treatment period.

Weight loss reported

8 mg weekly:

• ≈ 22% average body-weight reduction at 48 weeks

• Most participants tolerated the escalation well

• Side-effect frequency dropped after the early dose-ramp period

12 mg weekly:

• ≈ 24.2% average body-weight reduction at 48 weeks

• Highest numerical efficacy — nearly surgical-level weight loss

• Slightly higher dropout and GI side effects (nausea, vomiting, constipation)

• Participants had not yet plateaued at 48 weeks — weight loss was still ongoing

4 mg weekly:

• ≈ 13% mean reduction at 48 weeks

• Much better tolerance profile but less dramatic weight loss

1 mg weekly:

• ≈ 8% mean reduction

• Low side-effects but modest results

So from a bang for you buck perspective that 8mg weekly is a sweet spot if you’re looking for 20%-25% weight loss. Start with 2mg and double every 4 weeks until you get to 8mg.

If you’re doing anything other than following the study protocol, don’t expect the results of the study.

 

[MsGizmo]

If you’re doing anything other than following the study protocol, don’t expect the results of the study.

The study protocols are FAR from perfect. For example there is no reason to start that big or have those big jumps without also expecting more side effects. No where have I seen anyone suggest that a slower titration schedule damages overall weight loss results.

You see what I did up there in my previous post ... well, I am sitting at 26 weeks in and have lost more than 13% of my starting body weight. I have been losing weight at an acceptable and consistent rate.

By customizing your own protocol to how your body reacts one can expect BETTER results overall. Fewer side effects makes it easier to comply with a plan.

 

[GeraltRedhammer]

I suggest following the doses and titration of the most recent studies

Titration schedule summary (based on trial protocols)

Weeks 1-4: start at the low initial dose (e.g., 2 mg for the escalation arms)

After ~4 weeks: increase dose (e.g., from 2 mg → 4 mg)

Another ~4-week period: increase again (e.g., 4 mg → 8 mg)

For the 12 mg arm, further escalation up to 12 mg was done over ~12-weeks.

After reaching the maintenance dose, participants stayed on it for the remainder of the 48-week treatment period.

Weight loss reported

8 mg weekly:

• ≈ 22% average body-weight reduction at 48 weeks

• Most participants tolerated the escalation well

• Side-effect frequency dropped after the early dose-ramp period

12 mg weekly:

• ≈ 24.2% average body-weight reduction at 48 weeks

• Highest numerical efficacy — nearly surgical-level weight loss

• Slightly higher dropout and GI side effects (nausea, vomiting, constipation)

• Participants had not yet plateaued at 48 weeks — weight loss was still ongoing

4 mg weekly:

• ≈ 13% mean reduction at 48 weeks

• Much better tolerance profile but less dramatic weight loss

1 mg weekly:

• ≈ 8% mean reduction

• Low side-effects but modest results

So from a bang for you buck perspective that 8mg weekly is a sweet spot if you’re looking for 20%-25% weight loss. Start with 2mg and double every 4 weeks until you get to 8mg.

If you’re doing anything other than following the study protocol, don’t expect the results of the study.

I have doubts whether basing dosage on statistics is better than conscious observation of effects. In the studies you refer to, people reacted very differently to retatrutide. Some lost 10% of their weight, others 40%, and still others gave up because of side effects.

It is better to observe yourself and increase the dosage when it stops working than to increase it automatically. Statistically, my dog and I each have three legs. If we bought shoes based on statistics, I would buy three instead of two, and my dog would buy three instead of four...

 

[esdsafepoet]

I even started with 0.5 and noticeably felt the HR increase, so glad I didn't start with more. I think if I had started with 2, I would have been miserable.

 

[deleted.user.18]

The study protocols are FAR from perfect. For example there is no reason to start that big or have those big jumps without also expecting more side effects. No where have I seen anyone suggest that a slower titration schedule damages overall weight loss results.

You see what I did up there in my previous post ... well, I am sitting at 26 weeks in and have lost more than 13% of my starting body weight. I have been losing weight at an acceptable and consistent rate.

By customizing your own protocol to how your body reacts one can expect BETTER results overall. Fewer side effects makes it easier to comply with a plan.

Awesome, thanks for sharing your view. I’m not saying one approach is better or worse, just pointing out that if you use a different titration than the one in the trials, you’ll likely get different results . (maybe desirable, maybe undesirable) The published data for Retatrutide come from specific escalation schedules and dosing arms.

If you customise the protocol—slower ramp-up, different doses, etc.—that’s totally valid, but it puts you outside the exact conditions of the study. So just keep in mind the outcome may vary. It's definitely important to observe your bodies reaction and adjust or discontinue if needed.

 

[deleted.user.18]

I have doubts whether basing dosage on statistics is better than conscious observation of effects. In the studies you refer to, people reacted very differently to retatrutide. Some lost 10% of their weight, others 40%, and still others gave up because of side effects.

It is better to observe yourself and increase the dosage when it stops working than to increase it automatically. Statistically, my dog and I each have three legs. If we bought shoes based on statistics, I would buy three instead of two, and my dog would buy three instead of four...

You're right. Paying attention to your body is key. People respond differently, and noticing that matters.

But, personal accounts of others are not the best starting place for self experimentation. We simply don't know how they carried out their research or what other variables are at play. The RCTs give us tightly controlled evidence to analyze and process. Focusing on extremes, like the few who lost only 10% or had to stop, is what is called the Anecdotal Fallacy. Our brains naturally latch onto vivid stories, but they don’t outweigh the data. Here's why I think the trial titration and protocol are still the best starting point if an individual fits the target criteria and wants similar outcomes to the study:

The subject uniformity and variables were tightly controlled (same age, BMI, and dosing schedule). This means the statistics carry weight. The averages reflect what you can expect if you match those criteria. Your 'dog with three legs' analogy is clever, if you're suggesting the original poster is a different species... it made me chuckle, but it doesn't change the facts. It misses the point because it relies on the Availability Bias and Representative Heuristic. Evidence based decision making is the most sound course.

The 12 mg group, for example, lost 24.2% on average. This is a strong statstic; it's very high because a large number of participants lost over 30%! Only about 17% were low responders (losing <15%). Similarly, around 15% stopped due to side effects (but, to your point, had they been held at a more personalized effective dose, perhaps their outcomes would have been just as positive). That last number is exactly why the protocol uses slow titration, so you can avoid being one of the drop outs. Because we are not held to a trial protocol we have the benefit of holding our dose where it is the right balance between effect and side effect for each of us personally. (We agree on this point, I didn't mean otherwise)

Titration is your personal tool to handle your unique response. But the starting dose and protocol of the study give you evidence based guideposts for the safest, most efficient path to success. Many people on these forums complain that after months at tiny doses with slow increases they don't have the outcomes they expected and wonder what they're doing wrong. We agree completely that nobody should blindly titrate up if they're already suffering intolerable side effects. My core message is simply this: If you fit the study's criteria and want the study's results, you must follow the study's protocol. If a person is outside the study criteria (like someone with a healthy BMI of 24 only looking to lose 5-10 stuborn pounds... or a dog...), then yes, it's unreasonable to want the same results, and the study starting dose and titration doesn't apply.

 

[deleted.user.18]

I will make my first order of Reta with jeep, I wanted to ask what dosage u use im really curious abt it

I wanted to ask if it is recommended if i start with 2-3mg per week, please let me know and sorry if this is a dumb thread, im new to this and want to know as many things as possible.

I’m sorry. We should have asked: “What is your situation and goal?” We shouldn’t have assumed we know.

 

[MsGizmo]

If you customise the protocol—slower ramp-up, different doses, etc.—that’s totally valid, but it puts you outside the exact conditions of the study. So just keep in mind the outcome may vary. It's definitely important to observe your bodies reaction and adjust or discontinue if needed.

The outcomes vary WITHIN the official protocol too. Sure you can say that the AVERAGE weight loss at 8mg is 22% in 48 months. You can't say that Gino from Reno is absolutely going to lose 22% if he follows the protocol exactly. You can't say that Alice from Dallas won't lose 22% if she is micro dosing for a year.

 

[deleted.user.18]

The outcomes vary WITHIN the official protocol too. Sure you can say that the AVERAGE weight loss at 8mg is 22% in 48 months. You can't say that Gino from Reno is absolutely going to lose 22% if he follows the protocol exactly. You can't say that Alice from Dallas won't lose 22% if she is micro dosing for a year.

That’s a very fair point, and you are absolutely right: the average is not a guarantee for any single person. The 22% figure simply represents the center of a distribution curve of outcomes observed in the trial, it's not a prediction for Gino's exact weight loss.

However, even if Gino and Alice are perfect matches for the study criteria, the distinction between their methods is critical.

When Gino follows the official protocol (the exact dose and escalation schedule), he is embracing the path that offers the highest statistical probability of landing near that 22% average. The RCT protocol is the single most evidence-based guide for achieving the drug's maximum potential.

Conversely, when Alice micro-doses, she is deliberately choosing a schedule with zero supporting evidence. While she might get the same great result, it is not probabilistic. She has dramatically increased her statistical risk of two things: getting a low outcome because she never reached an effective dose, and facing unknown safety consequences because that specific schedule was never tested. For example, she risks poor drug acclimation, chronic low-grade side effects, and delaying the detection of any serious issues. She trades known quantified risks for unknown risk.

The average is both the best-case forecast and the safety benchmark. By choosing the protocol, Gino is maximizing his probability of success; by customizing, Alice is prioritizing personal experimentation over known safety and efficacy data.

The study doesn’t forecast your future; it simply documents a probability distribution curve of outcomes that could be replicated. This isn’t alchemy; it’s math and science. We wouldn't have any of these life-changing medications without them. This doesn't negate the importance of careful observation during self-experimentation or blindly following the study protocol in the face of serious side effects or concerning lab results.

 

[GeraltRedhammer]

That’s a very fair point, and you are absolutely right: the average is not a guarantee for any single person. The 22% figure simply represents the center of a distribution curve of outcomes observed in the trial, it's not a prediction for Gino's exact weight loss.

However, even if Gino and Alice are perfect matches for the study criteria, the distinction between their methods is critical.

When Gino follows the official protocol (the exact dose and escalation schedule), he is embracing the path that offers the highest statistical probability of landing near that 22% average. The RCT protocol is the single most evidence-based guide for achieving the drug's maximum potential.

Conversely, when Alice micro-doses, she is deliberately choosing a schedule with zero supporting evidence. While she might get the same great result, it is not probabilistic. She has dramatically increased her statistical risk of two things: getting a low outcome because she never reached an effective dose, and facing unknown safety consequences because that specific schedule was never tested. For example, she risks poor drug acclimation, chronic low-grade side effects, and delaying the detection of any serious issues. She trades known quantified risks for unknown risk.

The average is both the best-case forecast and the safety benchmark. By choosing the protocol, Gino is maximizing his probability of success; by customizing, Alice is prioritizing personal experimentation over known safety and efficacy data.

The study doesn’t forecast your future; it simply documents a probability distribution curve of outcomes that could be replicated. This isn’t alchemy; it’s math and science. We wouldn't have any of these life-changing medications without them. This doesn't negate the importance of careful observation during self-experimentation or blindly following the study protocol in the face of serious side effects or concerning lab results.

You would be right if people like Alice did not analyse the effects. If a lower dose results in a safe rate of weight loss, say 1.5-2 kg per week, there are no side effects, you do not feel weak, etc., then why increase the dose and risk greater side effects?

 

[MsGizmo]

When Gino follows the official protocol (the exact dose and escalation schedule), he is embracing the path that offers the highest statistical probability of landing near that 22% average. The RCT protocol is the single most evidence-based guide for achieving the drug's maximum potential.

Nope. Statistically speaking a person is much more likely to be a variant than the average. Depending of course how wide the bell curve happens to be. Losing weight too fast and having painful side effects on one end and not losing enough weight on the other.

The purpose of these types of studies is to get FDA approval and to establish a protocol for the masses ... never for the individual. The people behind this study NEED the highest possible weight losses within the study time frame for marketing purposes. There is no study for the people at the lower doses stepping to the next level for the 49th week. There is no 49th week for them. There is for us.

Furthermore .. anecdotal evidence IS evidence. Frankly, that is what the "official" studies are anyway. Just a conglomerate of standardized anecdotal information. They give a bunch of people a substance to inject/ingest in various dosages then they measure their responses, average everything out and write a report. That is no more valid than people in this forum openly discussing their personal experiences just because there was someone involved was holding a clipboard.

She has dramatically increased her statistical risk of two things: getting a low outcome because she never reached an effective dose, and facing unknown safety consequences because that specific schedule was never tested.

No, she hasn't. You can not claim a probable negative outcome without data just like I can not claim a positive one.

 

[mlke6]

I will make my first order of Reta with jeep, I wanted to ask what dosage u use im really curious abt it

I wanted to ask if it is recommended if i start with 2-3mg per week, please let me know and sorry if this is a dumb thread, im new to this and want to know as many things as possible.

so right now you have not started any glp peptides?

 

[deleted.user.18]

Nope. Statistically speaking a person is much more likely to be a variant than the average. Depending of course how wide the bell curve happens to be. Losing weight too fast and having painful side effects on one end and not losing enough weight on the other.

The purpose of these types of studies is to get FDA approval and to establish a protocol for the masses ... never for the individual. The people behind this study NEED the highest possible weight losses within the study time frame for marketing purposes. There is no study for the people at the lower doses stepping to the next level for the 49th week. There is no 49th week for them. There is for us.

Furthermore .. anecdotal evidence IS evidence. Frankly, that is what the "official" studies are anyway. Just a conglomerate of standardized anecdotal information. They give a bunch of people a substance to inject/ingest in various dosages then they measure their responses, average everything out and write a report. That is no more valid than people in this forum openly discussing their personal experiences just because there was someone involved was holding a clipboard.

No, she hasn't. You can not claim a probable negative outcome without data just like I can not claim a positive one.

Editing out sarcasm:

I understand your viewpoint. The key difference remains: forum anecdotes and custom protocols introduce uncontrolled variables that prevent us from assessing causality and safety. Clinical trials, through standardization and comparison to a placebo, provide the only evidence-based guide to predict both the most likely outcome and the known risks for an individual.

 

[deleted.user.18]

You would be right if people like Alice did not analyse the effects. If a lower dose results in a safe rate of weight loss, say 1.5-2 kg per week, there are no side effects, you do not feel weak, etc., then why increase the dose and risk greater side effects?

I agree, assessing the cost versus benefit is necessary for finding a personalized, effective treatment.

As for where to start dosing, looking at the trial results (RCTs) and using that controlled data to decide on a dose is an essential first step. The dosage a person chooses should be based on two things: how closely they match the studied patient group and their specific purpose for taking the drug.

I replied this to the original person last night: we need more information about them and their goals before we can suggest a specific recommendation. That personal context is the most important piece of the puzzle. It is a disservice to make assumptions and jump to conclusions.

 

[keangkong]

Nope. Statistically speaking a person is much more likely to be a variant than the average. Depending of course how wide the bell curve happens to be. Losing weight too fast and having painful side effects on one end and not losing enough weight on the other.

The purpose of these types of studies is to get FDA approval and to establish a protocol for the masses ... never for the individual. The people behind this study NEED the highest possible weight losses within the study time frame for marketing purposes. There is no study for the people at the lower doses stepping to the next level for the 49th week. There is no 49th week for them. There is for us.

Furthermore .. anecdotal evidence IS evidence. Frankly, that is what the "official" studies are anyway. Just a conglomerate of standardized anecdotal information. They give a bunch of people a substance to inject/ingest in various dosages then they measure their responses, average everything out and write a report. That is no more valid than people in this forum openly discussing their personal experiences just because there was someone involved was holding a clipboard.

No, she hasn't. You can not claim a probable negative outcome without data just like I can not claim a positive one.

The farther one deviates from the conditions in a study, the less likely the results in the study will apply to that person. I agree that individual outcomes different from group outcomes. So are group outcomes irrelevant? Not at all. If a drug was tested in a large group and in general people didn't lose weight on a drug, I wouldn't want to take that drug in an effort to lose weight. Let's consider eating 12 eggs a day to lose weight. Since I doubt that practice has ever been tested, we don't know with certainty that it will be a less effective weight loss intervention than using retatrutide. Yet I wouldn't recommend folks switch from reta to 12 eggs a day in an effort to lose weight.

Am I saying that a person should only take a drug as tested in trial, following the exact same dosing schedule? No. Doctors often deviate in how they prescribe drugs from how it was used in a trial. Some individualization is appropriate even if that individualization was not manifested in the study. However, the farther one deviates from the dosing in a study, the less likely similar results will apply to you. One of the more reasonable deviations, in my opinion, is to start with a lower dose than used in the study. The purpose would be to minimize side effects. However, it's highly likely that weight loss will be slower than if the person used the dose as used in the study. The patient may reasonably decide that the longer wait for results justifies a slow ramp up.

That's my answer. I never took a math course past past algebra II. I have never taken a statistics class. But that's my two cents.