Dr.PainCLE 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.

I read this differently from Dr.PainCLE, on substance rather than tone. 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.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase 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.

DebRD_ATL said:

The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.

One thing that is still open after Dr.SurgeonPGH’s answer:

How much of the tirzepatide advantage is the GIP component and how much is simply that the dose ladder goes higher in receptor-occupancy terms?

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

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.