roxy_nash 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.

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.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

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?

dave_SLC said:

Dose-response modeling for tirzepatide: Emax model fitting to the STEP/SURMOUNT dose-finding data shows: Semaglutide: ED50 ≈ 0.6mg, Emax ≈ -18%, Hill…

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

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.

Dr.Martinez said:

It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.

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.