The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Topic summary

[2026 update] Does dual agonism explain the effect size, or is it dose?

This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 64, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
L
LeitermanTL3Regular Solution23 Aug 2025#5

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.

11 likes 11mo
BJ
b.jansenTL2 Moderator8 Sep 2025#15

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.

28 likes 11mo
LT
l.trevinoTL2 Moderator16 Sep 2025#21
b.jansen, post #15: 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. Go to post

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.

27 likes in reply to #15 10mo
ZO
z.okonkwoTL2 Moderator27 Sep 2025#30
h.karlsen, post #22: SURMOUNT-4 used a randomised withdrawal design: everyone titrated, then those on maintenance were randomised to continue or placebo. Continuation maintained effect; withdrawal was followed by regain. The finding is robust but it says nothing about a lower effective maintenance dose, because that was not studied. Go to post

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.

28 likes in reply to #22 10mo
CR
compounding_ruthTL4Pharmacist4 Oct 2025#36

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.

32 likes 10mo
JM
j.mwangiTL4 Moderator13 Oct 2025#44

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

31 likes 9mo
AK
a.kirchnerTL2 Moderator19 Oct 2025#49

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.

32 likes 9mo
CO
c.okaforTL3Regular26 Oct 2025#56
compounding_ruth, post #36: 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. Go to post

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.

29 likes in reply to #36 9mo
BO
b.okonkwoTL2 Moderator1 Nov 2025#61

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

29 likes 9mo

Read the full topic (64 posts)

Suggested topics

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
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…
SLTVDNSRM+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…
TTARHMKRMC+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…
CGBIBTYSO+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 ,…
SCCHOLNVKB+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…
BMRMAWSOML+119 136 5.6k 2mo

Related topics — sharing the tags SURMOUNT programme, randomised trial, SURPASS programme

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
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 (…
LERWMHKMBR+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…
DBHCNRKKI+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…
DSCAKNKN+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…
FTJIRHAAP+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…
PGFCVWZV+86 92 54k 7mo