Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. Holding longer is the underrated move. A step that is uncomfortable at week two is frequently comfortable at week six with no change in dose, because the gastric-emptying component tachyphylaxes while the appetite effect persists. Escalating at week two throws that adaptation away.

amsterdam_pete said:

A step that is uncomfortable at week two is frequently comfortable at week six with no change in dose, because the gastric-emptying component…

Agreed on the arithmetic, with one condition: holding indefinitely at a dose that is not doing anything is not patience, it is a stall with a nice name. The distinction is whether appetite has changed at all at the current step.

gary_naperville said:

I titrated faster than the label because I felt fine, hit a wall at the third step, and had to come back down — which I now think was the predictable…

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so. The trials generally allowed a step to be held or reduced and then retried, and people who did that mostly arrived at the same place a few weeks later. The end point of the ladder is set by tolerability, not by a schedule, and there is no evidence that reaching the top faster produces a better outcome.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.

PSA for titration users considering the 0.25mg starting dose: this dose is NOT intended for weight loss. It's a titration dose to let your body adjust. Don't be discouraged if you don't lose much in the first month.

The therapeutic dose for weight management starts at 1.7mg (semaglutide) or 5mg (tirzepatide). Be patient with the ramp-up.