Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. 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.

VendorMark said:

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

Agreed on the mechanism, with the caveat that the head-to-head used semaglutide 1mg, not 2.4mg. It is still the best direct evidence available, but it is not the comparison most people think they are citing.

Dr.Martinez said:

I moved from semaglutide to tirzepatide after a long stall and the first eight weeks looked like starting over — which I gather is the usual pattern…

Same position here, arrived at the long way round. 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.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

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

Dose-response modeling for tirzepatide: Emax model fitting to the STEP/SURMOUNT dose-finding data shows:

Semaglutide: ED50 ≈ 0.6mg, Emax ≈ -18%, Hill coefficient ≈ 1.3
Tirzepatide: ED50 ≈ 6mg, Emax ≈ -25%, Hill coefficient ≈ 1.5

Clinical implication: most patients achieve >80% of maximal response by the mid-range dose (1.7mg sema, 10mg tirz). Going to the maximum dose provides diminishing returns — possibly not worth the additional side effect burden for some patients. Individualize dosing based on response vs tolerability.