This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. 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.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

Dr.AddMedPHL said:

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

Agreed on adaptation, with a caveat: adaptation applies to gastric emptying and not to everything. If your problem is the aversion rather than the fullness, waiting does less, because the aversion is central and it is the mechanism working as intended.

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

ricardo_MIA said:

The nausea I get is not really nausea, it is an aversion.

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

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.