Titration schedules for tirzepatide have more dose steps than semaglutide partly because the compound is more potent and partly because the clinical programme used a finer gradation. That does not mean you cannot escalate on a coarser schedule if that suits you — the published schedule is not a lower bound.
[2026 update] Does dual agonism explain the effect size, or is it dose?
On post #11 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Half-life difference: tirzepatide is about 5 days versus semaglutide's week-long. Practically, that means steady state is reached slightly faster and the post-dose swing is slightly larger. Most people do not report noticing the difference in practical terms.
post #20 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Titration schedules for tirzepatide have more dose steps than semaglutide partly because the compound is more potent and partly because the clinical programme used a finer gradation. That does not mean you cannot escalate on a coarser schedule if that suits you — the published schedule is not a lower bound.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
SURMOUNT-1 reported weight reduction of a magnitude that was the largest for a pharmacological intervention at that time of publication. It also reported a clear dose response across three doses. The categorical thresholds (people reaching 10%, 15%, 20% loss) got the most attention but read less informatively than the mean weight change.
Picking up post #46: that is the part I would want checked first.
SURMOUNT-1 reported weight reduction of a magnitude that was the largest for a pharmacological intervention at that time of publication. It also reported a clear dose response across three doses. The categorical thresholds (people reaching 10%, 15%, 20% loss) got the most attention but read less informatively than the mean weight change.
Titration schedules for tirzepatide have more dose steps than semaglutide partly because the compound is more potent and partly because the clinical programme used a finer gradation. That does not mean you cannot escalate on a coarser schedule if that suits you — the published schedule is not a lower bound.
Read the full topic (64 posts)
This topic was referenced in
- About the Tirzepatide categoryCompounds › Tirzepatide · 6 replies
- Comparing tirzepatide and semaglutide is harder than the tables suggestCompounds › Tirzepatide · 2 replies
- Tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes: the SURPASS programme, summarised honestly — the long versionCompounds › Tirzepatide · 90 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Tirzepatide category
Dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist. SURPASS and SURMOUNT programme data, titration, and comparative discussion. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is…
|
+2 | 6 | 132 | 13mo |
|
Tirzepatide molecular mass and the charge states you would expect on ESI — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Tirzepatide molecular mass and the charge states you would expect on ESI — does this still hold? Comparing STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021) with…
|
+7 | 11 | 281 | 6mo |
|
Does dual agonism explain the effect size, or is it dose?
Does dual agonism explain the effect size, or is it dose? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Session topic: SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it…
|
+62 | 68 | 2.6k | 29d |
|
Tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes: the SURPASS programme, summarised honestly — the long version
On the subject in the title: Tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes: the SURPASS programme, summarised honestly — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med ,…
|
+85 | 90 | 13k | 7mo |
|
The 2.5 mg starting dose is not a therapeutic dose — why that matters
The 2.5 mg starting dose is not a therapeutic dose — why that matters Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016). Please…
|
+119 | 136 | 5.6k | 2mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags SURMOUNT programme, randomised trial, SURPASS programme
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tirzepatide and nausea: is the profile genuinely different or just differently reported?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Tirzepatide and nausea: is the profile genuinely different or just differently reported? Comparing PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019) with STEP 8 (…
|
+18 | 22 | 37k | 8mo |
|
Why retatrutide discussion here is more cautious than elsewhere — one year on
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why retatrutide discussion here is more cautious than elsewhere — one year on Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019). Please read it…
|
+92 | 97 | 3.6k | 20h |
|
Why retatrutide discussion here is more cautious than elsewhere
Why retatrutide discussion here is more cautious than elsewhere I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I have seen SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med , 2024) cited…
|
+7 | 12 | 7.7k | 2mo |
|
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) with…
|
+32 | 37 | 574 | 5mo |
|
Comparing my trajectory with the trial curves, carefully
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Comparing my trajectory with the trial curves, carefully Everything below is what sits behind that. Maintenance rather than loss, which is the part of this that…
|
+86 | 92 | 54k | 7mo |