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.

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

Dr.RaviCardio said:

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

Dr.RaviCardio has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. 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.

TomFromTexas said:

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

Can confirm the pattern TomFromTexas 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.

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.