PeptideChemSF 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.

Agreeing with PeptideChemSF, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. The GIP arm is doing real work rather than padding the label. GIP receptor agonism appears to improve adipose insulin sensitivity and lipid handling, and — counter-intuitively — GIP signalling in the CNS reduces nausea rather than adding to it, which is why tolerability at high total agonism is better than the GLP-1-only comparison would predict. SURPASS-2 is the cleanest head-to-head: tirzepatide beat semaglutide 1mg at every dose tier.

PeptideChemSF 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.

Pushing back on PeptideChemSF here. 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.

This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. Steady state is faster than people expect: half-life about five days, so you are at plateau in roughly three to four weeks rather than five. That matters when you are deciding whether a dose step has finished expressing itself.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

The GIP arm is doing real work rather than padding the label.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.