PurityPaulOR 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.

I read this differently from PurityPaulOR, on substance rather than tone. The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me. It is better on mean weight loss, and the cardiovascular outcome evidence is far thinner than semaglutide's. If the reason for treating is cardiovascular risk rather than weight, the evidence base points the other way.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

InsuranceTom said:

The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me.

Coming at InsuranceTom’s question from a different direction. Training does two things here and only one of them is on the scale. It protects lean mass — which is the reason to do it — and it contributes modestly to the deficit, which is the reason people start and then quit when the arithmetic disappoints them. In a deep deficit, resistance work is the priority and high-volume cardio competes with recovery.

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?

Reporting back.

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.