Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. Holding genuinely reduces total burden rather than redistributing it, because the gastric-emptying component adapts. Receptor-level tachyphylaxis to the delayed-emptying effect develops over weeks while the central appetite effect persists, so the same dose is materially more comfortable at week six than at week two. A slower ladder therefore reaches the same dose with less cumulative nausea, not the same nausea spread thinner.

TrialTracker_MD said:

Holding genuinely reduces total burden rather than redistributing it, because the gastric-emptying component adapts.

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. The meal advice is right and incomplete without the hydration point. People stop drinking because drinking makes them feel full, then attribute dehydration symptoms to the drug.

WendyG_ATL said:

Nausea arrived on day two of each dose step, lasted about four days, and disappeared entirely by the second week — until the step where it did not.

Can confirm the pattern WendyG_ATL describes. The line between titrate-through and stop is not severity, it is trajectory and what else is present. Nausea that peaks and improves within a week is the expected pattern. Nausea that is escalating, or that comes with severe upper-abdominal pain radiating to the back, or that prevents fluids for more than a day, is a different conversation and belongs with a clinician the same day.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.