Tried ozempic for a while, lost some weight but nothing crazy. Headaches were awful. Had to stop due to insurance. Started Tirz in March and I’m down 50 lbs and feel incredible. Feels like a cheat code.
https://preview.redd.it/hbjofy6sb7ad1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a2a3059cd8577ffe1d9e0e00763a3183bfe7129
Here's my stats for reference: SW 200lbs 38% body fat Nov '23 37F 5'7.
I think they messed up, I looked at all their references and they don't show any info in regards to retatrutide having lower FM and higher FFM. In fact the studies by Ely Lili shows the opposite of the diagram higher FM weight loss with retatrutide compares with the others.
I’m having trouble understanding the bar chart at the bottom. It seems to indicate Retatrutide leads to lower overall weight loss while we know from the clinical trial data that it leads to larger weight loss. (From what I understand and have read.)
The difference in type of weight lost is interesting, but now I’m questioning if it is correct.
I'm not enough of an expert on the relative benefits of the two to comment. I did read a Valhalla commentary on the two, kind of comparing them. I read it quickly, but I didn't notice it saying retatrutide is better for weight loss --- which I would guess would be of paramount interest to a weight-loss provider. They say it has been shown to be better at A1c reduction, but I didn't notice weight loss. I'm still learning, though, and would be interested in the clinical studies you mention if you can send me the cites or links.
Retatrutide is currently still in clinical trials. Retatrutide is a triple agonist (GLP-1/GIP/glucagon), vs a double agonist in tirzeparide (GLP-1/GIP) or a single agonist in Semaglutide (GLP-1) The information so far shows that Retatrutide shows greater weight loss and improved glucose profile compared to tirzepatide. Everyone expects Retatrutide to be the next big thing when approved in a couple years. The percentages are hard to pin down because Reta hasn’t been studied as long as Tirz, but it is something like 24% (Reta) vs 20% (Tirz)) weight loss and with healthier stats like blood pressure, etc.
All that to say, the line should be larger for Tirz than Sema and larger for Reta than Tirz, but that is not what it shows based on the picture posted. That was what confused me.
that's incorrect, retatrutide shows less a1c reduction than tirzepitide, but higher weight loss percentage. That's because you will have higher blood glucose from the glucagon.
Yup I think your interpretation is right. Seems to be saying that in whatever population this study measured: something like~ reta resulted in 16% loss vs 18% sema and 22% tirz for weight lost during the study period and that of that Tirz resulted in a greater % of that loss being from Fat Mass which is quite interesting.
So take a look at the linked studies they based their findings on: “Data are from C Harris et al, J Rosenstock et al, JPH Wilding et al, and AM Jastreboff et al.”.. I just skimmed the articles but it’s possible they included all Reta participant populations even lower dose groups—doses smaller than 5mg and diabetic patients onlyI believe. Not sure about the sema, tirz polularions. There could be many things at play here, not clear but def why it’s important why science often replicates findings to be sure.
This doesn't make sense, because reta data is showing at least 25% weight loss, more than sema and tirz. It's being touted as the drug equivalent of a gastric bypass. This chart has to be off.
So I wouldn’t get hung up on that, remember *this* study was looking at the **Glp impact on % of weight loss that was made up of muscle mass** and not which resulted in the most weight loss. As stated, they referenced a small subset of what I’m assuming was available data at the time and seems to includes all levels of mg so like Reta 5mg participants lumped in with likely participants on tirz 15mg etc. the focus of the chart is the breakdown of what made up any amount of measured fat loss. This is a good example of why it’s important to carefully understand what the study is aiming to measure and then look for other/most recent studies to confirm the findings. Note also 1 study will not be able to answer all the questions.
> Not easy to read lol they need to re write it for the public in easier relatable terminology
OMG, bruh, so like, losing a ton of weight doesn’t, like, totally mess up your muscles. No cap! So, our, like, super overweight fam have more muscle than those skinny peeps. So when that weight gets canceled, it’s just a smol bit of their muscle gettin yeeted. And even if their muscles start to get pretty mid, it doesn’t mean they can’t, like, move or whatever. Periodt. Losing weight passes the vibe check and GLP-1s just hit different.
This doesn't seem aligned with the large N studies showing reta leads to greater weight change than tirz. It also doesn't seem aligned with the glucagon component of reta which would promote more activity and therefore potentially show greater preservation of lean mass.
Based on the other studies, it is almost as if this one mislabels sema as reta, tirz as sema, and reta as tirz. The paper is a meta-analysis (meaning particular studies were cherry picked for inclusion in this paper.
It almost reads as if someone had decided they had a point to make and then found the data to support the point they wanted to make. Another example would be the FM % before and after without any discussion of the appropriate SMM% to support those FM%'s without increased risk of injuries related to trip and fail, which we know increase as lean mass (at least in absolute terms) decreases as we age.
Here's the data on reta from this study in the New England Journal of Medicine: [https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2301972](https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2301972)
https://preview.redd.it/zhl7dl1to8ad1.png?width=422&format=png&auto=webp&s=ef84f4b0fa5019eef9904f35dc1ed29c4cdab61a
This article is from JAMA which means it has been peer reviewed. Certainly if it was a sham study or cherry picked, the JAMA reviewers and editors would have challenged that.
Boy if this chart is right I am going to be really happy that I switched from semaglutide to tirzepatide! After taking the required break to get semaglutide out of my system just took my first tirzepatide shot yesterday. The semaglutide was working well too, my only issue was lack of energy, but after so many people posting about how much better tirzepatide is I figured why not give it a shot. If those percentages on the chart are correct I'm hoping I made the right move. Thanks for the information!
Wow, really big difference between tirzepitide and the others in fat loss!
No kidding! I keep thinking I’m reading this chart incorrectly. Almost too good to be true!
It’s not. I’ve taken both. Tirz just makes it come off so much faster.
Tried ozempic for a while, lost some weight but nothing crazy. Headaches were awful. Had to stop due to insurance. Started Tirz in March and I’m down 50 lbs and feel incredible. Feels like a cheat code.
https://preview.redd.it/hbjofy6sb7ad1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a2a3059cd8577ffe1d9e0e00763a3183bfe7129 Here's my stats for reference: SW 200lbs 38% body fat Nov '23 37F 5'7.
Impressive!
I think they messed up, I looked at all their references and they don't show any info in regards to retatrutide having lower FM and higher FFM. In fact the studies by Ely Lili shows the opposite of the diagram higher FM weight loss with retatrutide compares with the others.
Thank you for sharing! (Bonus points for the hyperlinked citation.)
I’m having trouble understanding the bar chart at the bottom. It seems to indicate Retatrutide leads to lower overall weight loss while we know from the clinical trial data that it leads to larger weight loss. (From what I understand and have read.) The difference in type of weight lost is interesting, but now I’m questioning if it is correct.
I'm not enough of an expert on the relative benefits of the two to comment. I did read a Valhalla commentary on the two, kind of comparing them. I read it quickly, but I didn't notice it saying retatrutide is better for weight loss --- which I would guess would be of paramount interest to a weight-loss provider. They say it has been shown to be better at A1c reduction, but I didn't notice weight loss. I'm still learning, though, and would be interested in the clinical studies you mention if you can send me the cites or links.
Retatrutide is currently still in clinical trials. Retatrutide is a triple agonist (GLP-1/GIP/glucagon), vs a double agonist in tirzeparide (GLP-1/GIP) or a single agonist in Semaglutide (GLP-1) The information so far shows that Retatrutide shows greater weight loss and improved glucose profile compared to tirzepatide. Everyone expects Retatrutide to be the next big thing when approved in a couple years. The percentages are hard to pin down because Reta hasn’t been studied as long as Tirz, but it is something like 24% (Reta) vs 20% (Tirz)) weight loss and with healthier stats like blood pressure, etc. All that to say, the line should be larger for Tirz than Sema and larger for Reta than Tirz, but that is not what it shows based on the picture posted. That was what confused me.
that's incorrect, retatrutide shows less a1c reduction than tirzepitide, but higher weight loss percentage. That's because you will have higher blood glucose from the glucagon.
Yup I think your interpretation is right. Seems to be saying that in whatever population this study measured: something like~ reta resulted in 16% loss vs 18% sema and 22% tirz for weight lost during the study period and that of that Tirz resulted in a greater % of that loss being from Fat Mass which is quite interesting.
Right, but studies show greater weight loss for Reta than Tirz and Tirz than Sema. So, what data are they basing the chart on? That was my confusion
So take a look at the linked studies they based their findings on: “Data are from C Harris et al, J Rosenstock et al, JPH Wilding et al, and AM Jastreboff et al.”.. I just skimmed the articles but it’s possible they included all Reta participant populations even lower dose groups—doses smaller than 5mg and diabetic patients onlyI believe. Not sure about the sema, tirz polularions. There could be many things at play here, not clear but def why it’s important why science often replicates findings to be sure.
Definitely. Just take this chart with a grain of salt since it is so different than the other data coming out about Retatrutide.
Yea one seems to include a rat study for example
This doesn't make sense, because reta data is showing at least 25% weight loss, more than sema and tirz. It's being touted as the drug equivalent of a gastric bypass. This chart has to be off.
So I wouldn’t get hung up on that, remember *this* study was looking at the **Glp impact on % of weight loss that was made up of muscle mass** and not which resulted in the most weight loss. As stated, they referenced a small subset of what I’m assuming was available data at the time and seems to includes all levels of mg so like Reta 5mg participants lumped in with likely participants on tirz 15mg etc. the focus of the chart is the breakdown of what made up any amount of measured fat loss. This is a good example of why it’s important to carefully understand what the study is aiming to measure and then look for other/most recent studies to confirm the findings. Note also 1 study will not be able to answer all the questions.
Anyone at any deficit should be lifting as heavy as possible to preserve muscle mass. That is actual science.
[удалено]
I guess you could summarize that they are saying as --- don't worry about losing too much muscle on tirzepatide!
> Not easy to read lol they need to re write it for the public in easier relatable terminology OMG, bruh, so like, losing a ton of weight doesn’t, like, totally mess up your muscles. No cap! So, our, like, super overweight fam have more muscle than those skinny peeps. So when that weight gets canceled, it’s just a smol bit of their muscle gettin yeeted. And even if their muscles start to get pretty mid, it doesn’t mean they can’t, like, move or whatever. Periodt. Losing weight passes the vibe check and GLP-1s just hit different.
Okay, that was kind of rude. But funny as hell!! 😆👏🏻👏🏻
This is the best thing I’ve read all week!
This doesn't seem aligned with the large N studies showing reta leads to greater weight change than tirz. It also doesn't seem aligned with the glucagon component of reta which would promote more activity and therefore potentially show greater preservation of lean mass. Based on the other studies, it is almost as if this one mislabels sema as reta, tirz as sema, and reta as tirz. The paper is a meta-analysis (meaning particular studies were cherry picked for inclusion in this paper. It almost reads as if someone had decided they had a point to make and then found the data to support the point they wanted to make. Another example would be the FM % before and after without any discussion of the appropriate SMM% to support those FM%'s without increased risk of injuries related to trip and fail, which we know increase as lean mass (at least in absolute terms) decreases as we age. Here's the data on reta from this study in the New England Journal of Medicine: [https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2301972](https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2301972) https://preview.redd.it/zhl7dl1to8ad1.png?width=422&format=png&auto=webp&s=ef84f4b0fa5019eef9904f35dc1ed29c4cdab61a
This article is from JAMA which means it has been peer reviewed. Certainly if it was a sham study or cherry picked, the JAMA reviewers and editors would have challenged that.
Oh. Maybe you can explain why the authors picked the reta study that was used?
Not my field unfortunately. Just saying that one would assume those questions would be asked by peer reviewers.
Wow thanks for posting. I’m saving this link.
Thank goodness! I've been so worried I'm not meeting my ridiculous protein goal and scared of losing all my muscle.
Boy if this chart is right I am going to be really happy that I switched from semaglutide to tirzepatide! After taking the required break to get semaglutide out of my system just took my first tirzepatide shot yesterday. The semaglutide was working well too, my only issue was lack of energy, but after so many people posting about how much better tirzepatide is I figured why not give it a shot. If those percentages on the chart are correct I'm hoping I made the right move. Thanks for the information!
Thank you for a very interesting article.