This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. Four weeks is the pharmacokinetics, not caution. With a one-week half-life you need four to five half-lives to reach steady state, so at two weeks you are dosing on top of a concentration that has not finished rising. Escalating then stacks exposure and you get the side-effect burden of the higher dose before you have seen the benefit of the current one.

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

Four weeks is the pharmacokinetics, not caution.

Agreed on the arithmetic, with one condition: holding indefinitely at a dose that is not doing anything is not patience, it is a stall with a nice name. The distinction is whether appetite has changed at all at the current step.

jason_paloalto said:

I titrated faster than the label because I felt fine, hit a wall at the third step, and had to come back down — which I now think was the predictable…

Can confirm the pattern jason_paloalto describes. Holding longer is the underrated move. A step that is uncomfortable at week two is frequently comfortable at week six with no change in dose, because the gastric-emptying component tachyphylaxes while the appetite effect persists. Escalating at week two throws that adaptation away.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly.

Dose escalation anxiety for titration: I was terrified to move from 0.5mg to 1.0mg based on horror stories in this forum. But my actual experience? Slightly more appetite suppression, zero additional side effects.

Remember that the people posting about terrible side effects are a biased sample. Most people titrate up without drama — they just don't post about it because it's uneventful.