DebRD_ATL said:

The pharmacokinetics explain nearly every practical question asked here.

All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.

DanielChem_CHI said:

The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

DebRD_ATL said:

The pharmacokinetics explain nearly every practical question asked here.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.

One concrete data point for the thread. Numbers worth memorising for this class: Tmax one to three days for the weekly peptides, terminal half-life about a week for semaglutide and about five days for tirzepatide, steady state at four to five half-lives, subcutaneous bioavailability high enough that site choice is irrelevant.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. No action needed from anybody.