COA_Karl said:

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

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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.

FDA_TrackerJim said:

The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.

Following on from josh_phd_bmore — and this may be the naive question:

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?

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.