TirzTom said:

SURMOUNT-1 landed around 20.9% mean weight loss at 15mg over 72 weeks, against roughly 15% for semaglutide 2.4mg in STEP 1.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me. It is better on mean weight loss, and the cardiovascular outcome evidence is far thinner than semaglutide's. If the reason for treating is cardiovascular risk rather than weight, the evidence base points the other way.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

FDA_TrackerJim said:

The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me.

Coming at FDA_TrackerJim’s question from a different direction. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

Following on from sarah.morrison — and this may be the naive question:

Whether anyone has held 10mg long term rather than climbing, and what happened over the following year?

Closing the loop on my own question.

Reporting back after another eight months at the same dose. Still losing slowly, no new side effects, and no reason I can find to climb further.